Oh hell, is Elevatorgate going to ruin TAM9?

"What do women want?" Sigmund Freud once famously asked. Aretha Franklin answered him just as famously: "R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me!"

If you haven't been keeping up with the current online eruption surrounding Elevatorgate — and I suspect most of you have at least heard about it, as Skepchick and Pharyngula are just slightly more widely read than our little blog — I will just direct you to those sites for the full-immersion experience. But to recap, here are the main bullet points...

Rebecca Watson of Skepchick fame attends a conference overseas. Gets hit on by clueless doof in the hotel elevator at 4 AM, brushes him off. Mentions the incident in her talk, as well as online, saying, in effect, "Hey guys, don't do stuff like that, thanks."

This being the Internet, the situation Escalates into full-on web drama. Loser guys with same sense of clueless entitlement blow Rebecca's reaction all out of proportion, make her out to be stick-up-the-ass prude who pilloried some poor Nice Guy for the ghastly crime of asking her for coffee. Larger group of Rebecca defenders jump in, including PZ, Jen at Blag Hag, and many others, chiding the guys for not getting it and pointing to a very real problem of acculturated sexism that infects the skeptical/atheist community just as it does the wide world.

Then, out of the blue, Rebecca gets a "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" note from no less a luminary than Richard Dawkins, the boneheadedness of which stupefies everyone (except, of course, the clueless doof brigade). Short version: in a world in which women are undergoing such horrors as genital mutilation and death by stoning, any chick who has nothing more to complain about than an unwelcome pass in an elevator is clearly a petulant whiner. Seriously.

Understandably incensed — I mean, way to miss the point, Prof! — Rebecca publicly chastises and disowns Dawkins. And now, it appears the godless Internet is splitting into Team Rebecca and Team Richard camps.

From such pebbles do avalanches begin.

I will make my position so clear even a gerbil with dyslexia should be able to get it, because this is the Internet, and it appears one's words can be wildly misunderstood and misrepresented here. (Who knew?) In six words: Dawkins is wrong, Rebecca is right. Dawkins' point — which is fundamentally no different than telling atheists that in a world where the godless are burned at the stake, we're being kind of petty to complain about "little" things like God in the Pledge or creationism in the classroom — is simply wrong. He's as wrong as a wrong thing with the word wrong written on it by someone who can't spell.

Now, TAM9 is coming up, and I am concerned that the backwash from all this is going to cast an ugly pall over a convention that ought to be the community's annual high point. It isn't that Rebecca and her supporters (hello, I am one) aren't justified in their anger. They are. But...

The whole "throwing Dawkins under the bus" thing is, I think, unproductive. We are rationalists. We pride ourselves on our capacity for reason, which we boast of having more of than anyone else. So what do we do about this? Do we employ our reason, and turn this event into the teachable moment it needs to be? After all, Dawkins wrote TGD, in his words, in the interest of "raising consciousness." Clearly, acculturated sexism is a matter about which Dawkins desperately needs his consciousness raised. Will we give him the chance to do this? After all, the man's achievements over the last decade in the service of promoting atheism and reason — culminating in both topics today being suitable for bestselling books, rather than shameful topics you just cannot mention in polite society — are considerable, and the debt atheists worldwide owe him is incalculable. I am simply acknowledging a fact, not putting the man on a pedestal or anything. He's done a lot, and that deserves recognition.

So how do we pay him back for this? Do we say, "You helped us gain stature and credibility. Now you apparently need our help, getting over some ideas of privilege you seem to have a problem with. Here. This is why you are wrong. Please think about these things and man up to your mistake." This, is seems to me, is the path of rationality.

Or, do we abandon rationality, give ourselves over to emotion, anger and ego, and circle the wagons around the sense of righteousness gained from believing that we've taken the right side of a split? (Note: I do not accuse Rebecca of this, as she's responding to a personal insult and has every right to respond as she chooses. But I think such a thing would be the case if skeptics en masse did so.) I can think of nothing that would disappoint me more than to witness the drama of a mass walkout of Dawkins' speech at TAM. I would understand it, but I'd wish a path had been taken towards allowing this conflict to be something the godless community saw as an opportunity for education and problem solving, rather than digging in trenches.

Attitudes of sexism and male entitlement do exist among those of us who consider ourselves rationalists. You should see some of the fratboy bullshit that pops up in the chat room when either Jen or Tracie are on the show. It's like, WTF? Who are you people?

I know that I myself had to unlearn a lot of my own acculturation, and I am equally sure I'd get a "Needs Improvement" grade on my efforts even today. But I know that when I was younger, less secure and a bit more arrogant, I reacted poorly to rejection in ways that I can only now, years later, understand were wrong and, yeah, pretty damned creepy. I had to outgrow feeling sexually entitled, just like I had to outgrow homophobia. My perceived loneliness and need to dip my wick was not, I had to learn, any woman's problem to solve. There is so much about my 20-24 year old self that embarrasses me to remember.

But I learned, and am still learning, and I want those who still need to learn — even if they are 70-year-old celebrity scientists — to be able to do so. It's harder to change your attitudes as you get older, as you get set in your ways. But I think it can still be done.

For the most part, I do see an effort to correct and educate Dawkins has been made. Dawkins has asked to be led to understanding of where he is wrong, even if, as far as I could tell, he may still not yet get it.

What I want to happen out of this is consciousness-raising. Will TAM9 be the event that helps that occur, or that divides us further? I guess we will see.

Non-Prophets 9.9!

Well, here it is at last, gang. Probably the last of the guerilla episodes, as the regular series is set to resume, I do believe, this coming weekend!

Gia Grillo, Chris Conner and I reteam, and end up spending a lot of this episode wagging our fingers at some of our fellow heathens, expressing our dismay at the way some people in the atheist camp got caught up in the wave of Muslim-bashing that arose around the Park51 controversy. While none of us likes Islam, naturally, most of the rhetoric was simple hate speech from the Fox News wingnut camp that grossly generalized all Muslims, even those who are peaceful and loyal U.S. citizens, under the "terrorist" banner. That some atheists actually fell into that trap of emotion-clouded unreason is something we hate to see.

Then we smack around Phil Plait a bit for his "Don't Be a Dick" speech, and talk about accommodationism vs. confrontationalism.

Not to be a whiner, but holy hell balls this one was tough to edit. But I think the mix is superior to 9.6, even though our different mics and the fact we were basically recording a three-way Skype call means it still isn't audiophile material by any means. (I apologize for my harsh S's.) I hope you all enjoy it, and I'm off for a nap. If you'd rather wait for the iTunes feed, Matt tells me he'll do the necessary admin stuff to get it up on the feed either tonight or tomorrow, so you won't have to wait days and days like last time. And if you want art for your iPod, download the above graphic and stick it in yourself. With 9.6 Russell told me I inadvertently changed the art for the whole feed by embedding it in the episode beforehand. Durp.

Consider the comments to be an open thread on the episode.

Clearly this is a discussion that is long overdue

Before a dozen people send me a link to this article: A Rational Approach to Irrationality let me just say that I've read it, it's more accommodationist dribble and as I agree with Jerry Coyne on the subject, I'll just send you over to read his response.

The only thing I'll add is this:

Pretending that religious delusions are harmless makes you part of the problem.

Promoting your kinder, gentler skepticism by way of decidedly unskeptical methods (unsupported assertions, emotional appeals and encouragements to be less critical with one's critical thinking) betrays the principles that make skepticism something people should aspire toward.

For the accommodationists, I'll put it bluntly, as the more diplomatic responses seem to go unanswered: You're still skeptics. You can still call yourself a skeptics (anyone can). You can still be part of the group and attend events and talk about skepticism.... but you're a very poor skeptic in this area. You've demonstrated a preference for style over substance and shown that you're willing to water down your skepticism for marketing purposes.

That's your prerogative - but if you continually try to pretend that you hold the skeptical high ground while encouraging others to water down their skepticism or disparaging those who most consistently apply skepticism, you've become part of the problem and the unapologetic defenders of reason, inquiry and skepticism will continue to call you out on this.

Still more on being a dick

This started as a comment on Matt's post about being a dick, but when it got to a certain length, I decided to barge to the front of the line and write my own post. That is, no doubt, a dick move on my part. :)

The problem with Phil's approach isn't that there are no dicks in the atheist community. Obviously there are, as highlighted by the "all Christians are retarded" post linked in that thread. All Christians aren't retarded, and that's a dick thing to say. One point for Phil.

The real problem is that by focusing on it in a speech this way, Phil gives the clearly false impression that this is systemic to the "leaders" of the "new atheist" "movement" (to the extent that there are leaders and it is a movement that is new, although I join many in despising the "new" designation).

There's a bait-and-switch which always seems to go on in these discussions. PZ Myers, Dawkins, and we on TAE, do what we can to attack ideas and not people at every opportunity. Some people are dumb, but none of us wants to paint with a broad brush everyone who holds a belief as universally dumb. We say that up front, and we don't hesitate to call specific ideas dumb, if it's warranted. By focusing on the ideas we can pay attention to WHY they're dumb, rather than calling names of people who, after all, are complex individuals with many different ideas and motivations.

We do attack ideas, but we attack them in a way that sometimes offends people. The point, though, is that the people who are taking offense are often doing so due to unreasonable beliefs. Like PZ Myers and his "frackin' cracker." It's less about the offensive language and more about the fact that certain people believe the cracker is the body of Jesus -- which it clearly isn't -- and they are willing to terrorize and intimidate people who don't treat it with the respect due to a magical cracker -- which it isn't. It's about the fact that people should be allowed to draw cartoons with Mohammed as a character -- clearly an activity that harms no one except by annoying them -- without receiving death threats.

In a nutshell, this is about drawing attention to an activity which shouldn't be offensive but is. It is taking a stand to say that religious devotees cannot draw arbitrary battle lines and say "We hereby intend to be offended by activity X, and unless you cease and desist from doing X at all times, you are a dick." I actually see a lot of parallel between this issue and the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque", which is neither a Mosque nor at ground zero. On that subject, an opinion seems to be coalescing, even among people who are trying to appear reasonable, that "those Muslims have the right to build a cultural center there, but good taste dictates that they should not do it."

I reject that. I think if anything, this whole crapstorm has made it more apparent that those Muslims should build their cultural center right where they damn well said they would, because if they give up ground on this issue then there won't be a spot in America where they are allowed to build anything, ever. Free speech and free assembly aren't just symbolic. If those rights aren't exercised then we can still lose them.

I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion about what are the best methods for exercising our free speech to deal with unreasonable taboos. Sure , Phil, in a few situations it may be preferable to be polite and observe the taboos that you disagree with, depending on how important the fight is. I reject, however, the categorical statement that you shouldn't do things that might make some group think you're a dick. That way lies capitulation to every unrealistic demand of a new Taliban.

But Phil Plait would also like to strengthen his case by sneakily conflating two things. On one hand, we have posts that say "All Christians are Retards," a statement which is both dickish and false. On the other hand, we have PZ Myers throwing his cracker in the trash. By conflating the two, we can be left with the impression that PZ Myers calls all Christians retards, when in reality the two acts are not equivalent.

It just seems to me that way too often, saying "Don't be a dick" is actually code for "Shut up and accept it when other people are dicks to you."

What type of Theistic Skeptic are you?

I've obviously spent a lot of time on this subject and this will be a much shorter post. I'm simply going to categorize, for clarity, the different types of skeptical theists. I've named them after individuals who all self-identify as both skeptic and theist (some as a specific subtype, like Christian) and as skeptics.

The "Lee Strobel"

This individual is convinced that the proper application of skeptical principle actually confirms their theistic beliefs.

The "Pamela Gay"

This individual is convinced that their theistic beliefs are beyond the critical eye of skeptical principles, often asserting that skepticism only applies to testable claims.

The "Martin Gardner"

This individual acknowledges that they're not being skeptical of their theistic beliefs and that they have some emotional reason for believing. Often they'll acknowledge that their beliefs most probably would not hold up under the critical evaluation of skepticism.

I've covered the difference between the "Pamela Gay" and "Martin Gardner" types in previous posts. In short, neither is applying skepticism to their theistic beliefs and one is claiming that it shouldn't apply. The assertion that skepticism can say nothing about untestable claims is one that I think is demonstrably absurd.

But what about the "Lee Strobel" type?

I'm pretty sure that if we polled skeptics at a convention like TAM (and I think we should), an extraordinarily high percentage would claim that the "Lee Strobel"-type is simply not a very good skeptic. Some of them, might even flatly claim that the "Lee Strobel"-type simply isn't a skeptic, despite using the label.

Is Lee Strobel a skeptic? How about Kent Hovind or Duane Gish or Ken Ham or Deepak Chopra or Sylvia Brown? I'd be willing to bet that most of them would self-identify as a skeptic because most of them think that they have evidence (or perhaps pretend that they think they have evidence, if they're simply dishonest) and that the evidence confirms their beliefs. They, like most people, recognize the value of evidence in understanding reality and I'd bet that most of them (hell, most anyone) would say, "Yes, I'm a skeptic and I value skepticism" once they've had it explained to them.

(The explanation, by the way, could simply be: a skeptic is a person who strives to accurately understand reality by accepting only those things that are supported by the evidence.)

But are they really a skeptic, just because they call themselves one? Would you consider them to be a good skeptic? Is their usage of skeptic consistent with your own...is it consistent with the larger skeptical community? If any of those people were invited to speak on behalf of skepticism, would you object?

Let's not pretend that legitimate, skeptical questions about this subject can be answered by accusations of a "no true Scotsman" fallacy if we're really trying to determine whether or not someone is conveying accurate information about Scotland.

Let's not pretend that we're somehow rude for questioning or correcting misinformation or that there's no problem with letting some misinformation slip by.

If we wouldn't pretend that the "Lee Strobel"-type has any more knowledge about Scotland than one might obtain after watching a special on the Loch Ness monster...then let's not pretend - at all.

Atheism and Skepticism

I've talked about the Skeptics' Schism before...and I'm sure I'll talk about it again. Here's today's take on the subject.

I'd recommend reading D.J.'s post at the JREF site, and PZ Myers' post that it links to.

Seriously. They're good posts and provide the needed context and background for this quote from Pamela Gay:

"To me, skepticism applies to testable parts of my life. Through science, I can test ideas and make predictions. As a skeptical thinker, when I'm confronted with data I have to be willing to change my ideas about reality, and if the predictive powers of science fail me, I have to admit my science is wrong. A belief in God is a belief in something frustratingly untestable. I can make no testable predictions using religion, but instead find myself faced with having to make an opinion-based judgement. I have made the choice to believe. I admit I have doubts - I am not so strong a person as to say my faith is complete and that in the dark of night I don't worry that I'm wrong. But in the absence of data, I have made the choice to believe in a God."

Here are the questions I'd like to ask:

1. If something isn't testable, how do you justify believing it?

2. How is this not simply a shifting the burden of proof - accepting an answer, without data to support it, and holding that position until data is presented to contradict it?

3. What makes you think belief is simply a choice? Did you really consciously choose to believe a god exists in the absence of supporting evidence or was there more? Isn't it more accurate to say that you've become convinced for reasons that are admittedly not rational or supported by evidence...reasons of which you may not be full cognizant? Was it a choice or is there some underlying presupposition that you're not recognizing?

4. Do you care whether or not your beliefs are justified?

5. Is it hypocritical to selectively apply skepticism?

I'm not picking on Pamela here - these questions are for any skeptic that identifies as a theist. They've been asked before and I have yet to hear any satisfactory answers. Pamela is simply the most recent, relevant example. And, while I shouldn't have to say this, I'm not raising this to attack her - I'm addressing the claims.

Anyone can be skeptical of something. It's probably the case that every sane person is skeptical of many things. It's natural for us to be curious and skeptical. But when someone identifies as a skeptic and we identify others as a skeptics, we're not talking about "natural skepticism" or being skeptical, we're talking about "applied skepticism" - the conscious application of skeptical ideals as tool for evaluating claims.

How skeptical do you have to be in order to qualify as a skeptic?

Skeptics strive (even if they fail) to be skeptical of all things, don't they? That, to me, is what skepticism is. If it's nothing more than picking and choosing what you'll be skeptical of, where is the usefulness? How can you criticize untestable claims while holding your own and claiming they're immune? When I hear that people like Paul Kurtz are claiming that we shouldn't be skeptical of everything, I have to wonder exactly what's going on.

Don't misunderstand, I agree that we can only adequately investigate testable claims - but we should be skeptical of all claims. What would we say if James Randi, for example, stated that he received an applicant for the Million Dollar Challenge who presented a claim that was untestable but that he was going to go ahead and "choose to believe" this untestable claim (though not aware the prize) despite the lack of supporting evidence?

Pamela writes:

"Someone who compartmentalizes their life - placing religion in one box and skepticism in another - is tearing themselves apart"

... yet she tries to claim that her religious beliefs are untestable and immune from skeptical examination. How is that not compartmentalization? If her beliefs are untestable, why believe? If her beliefs are not untestable, why claim they are...and why believe? How is this different from someone who makes any other untestable woo claim?

None of us are perfect in our application of critical thinking and skepticism, we're all going to make mistakes. We're going to accept bad evidence. We're going to allow our emotions and desires to color our evaluation of evidence. We're going to show a little special treatment for the things we treasure.

But shouldn't skepticism be about recognizing those errors and striving to overcome them? Shouldn't it be about a diligent pursuit of the goal to hold the best possible understanding of reality? When confronted with an error like this, wouldn't we expect a good skeptic to acknowledge the error and change their position? Isn't that the hallmark of skepticism?

I've said, many times, that I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Both sides of that coin are critical. If you're only concerned with believing as many true things as possible; believe everything. If you're only concerned with believing as few false things as possible; believe nothing.

Skepticism shuns both of those extremes (credulity and cynicism) and cares solely about serving as a filter to separate information into piles marked 'reliable' and 'unreliable'. It is an ideal predicated on the desire to have the most accurate understanding of reality that we're capable of.

Pamela even notes this when she writes; "the natural outcome in skepticism is acknowledging doubt". That's true and beautiful but it's only part of the story. It's not simply about acknowledging doubt (because that allows people to misrepresent the burden of proof), it's about attempting to doubt appropriately - to discover which bits of information are reliable enough to be believed and which are not.

There's a difference between being skeptical and being a skeptic - or there should be. If someone claims to be a skeptic, yet believes in god or auras or ghosts without presenting supporting evidence, is that a problem? Not so long as they recognize that on that particular subject, they're not properly applying the skepticism they advocate. Essentially, they're hypocritical in their application of skepticism.

Does that mean they're a lousy skeptic? On that subject, yes. Overall? That depends. Some skeptics will recognize and acknowledge that they're not properly applying skepticism. Others will claim that skepticism isn't relevant to that subject. I'm having a really difficult time deciding which of those is more dangerous and which represents the greatest hypocrisy.

Is the willful rejection of skeptical values in order to cling to a cherished belief more or less detrimental if that rejection is acknowledged? Is it better to say, "Yes, I'm not being skeptical about this - because it makes me feel good" than to say "Skepticism simply doesn't apply here"?

I've got to think that the latter is a gross conceptual error about what skepticism is, if we're going to distinguish it from simply "being skeptical".

It's very likely that each individual case is different. It's a complicated landscape and this isn't about assigning people a score, as though I'm 92% pure skeptic and they're 89% or 96%. There are plenty of things that I've been insufficiently skeptical of - but when I've been challenged on those things, I've acknowledged it and reevaluated my position. I've never said or implied that I hold some belief that is beyond the realm of skeptical inquiry.

It may be the case that some of these willful rejections of skepticism amount to no more than traveling slightly over the speed limit, but if you're part of a movement that encourages people to adhere to the speed limit, you don't get to willfully ignore it without being called out for hypocrisy.

I like Pamela. She seems to be a nice person, she's smart, she's probably a good scientist and, apart from her religious views, she seems to be a pretty good skeptic. I not only don't object to her speaking at TAM 8 (The Amaz!ng Meeting), I was happy to hear she'd be speaking. Unlike some people, I actually hoped that she'd be specifically addressing theistic skepticism - as that's a subject that I find fascinating (if not frustrating). I also don't object to Hal Bidlack (another skeptical theist) serving as MC for TAM. Hal's someone I liked, despite the fact that we may disagree about the relationship between skepticism and theism.

What I object to are the attempts to curtail discussion on this subject. What I object to are the attempt to portray some skeptics as troublemakers, negatively affecting the whole, simply because they're not hesitant to say that they're skeptical of the claim that "theistic skeptic" isn't oxymoron.

Pamela writes:

"There is currently a philosophy that “skepticism is a proper subset of atheism: that is, not all atheists are skeptics but all skeptics are atheists.”" [snip] "This is false logic. Being a skeptic does not preclude a belief in a God. Being a skeptic simply means I have to admit that there are things I know are scientifically true and based on evidence (such as the age of the universe), and there are things that in the absence of sufficient data I may choose to believe in or not believe in (such as God)."

D.J. agrees with Pamela (in part):

"I do not believe that skepticism is a subset of atheism. I believe, and I wonder why it isn't obvious to everyone, that atheism is a subset of skepticism."

It's true that skepticism is not a subset of atheism, in that context. I agree with D.J. that this should be painfully obvious. Atheism deals with a single claim and that is insufficient to serve as a superset for skepticism. But we're talking about 'isms' in that context. Skepticism could include a bunch of "isms" under its umbrella...that tells us nothing about whether or not skepticism supports or precludes theism.

Pamela, though, shifts scopes - both from 'skepticism/atheism' to 'skeptic/atheist' and also from 'is' to 'ought'. Of course there are theists who identify as skeptics - that's not in question.

Here's the simple question that seems to be avoided like the plague:

Does the proper application of skepticism support theism?

Anyone who thinks the answer is "yes", please defend that position - just as someone who felt that their belief in ghosts was supported by the proper application of skepticism.

If the answer is "no" - then it is clear that the proper application of skepticism supports the atheistic position, in the sense that (skeptical) atheism rejects theistic claims as unbelievable due to insufficient evidence. Read that twice. Insert the word "nontheism" for "(skeptical) atheism", if it makes it more clear. (I'll bet I still get someone e-mailing about middle ground...)

That's what we're really discussing here: Is theism consistent with the proper application of skepticism?

Pamela would like to have us believe it is and she attempts to do so by claiming that her theism is untestable and claiming that "Being a skeptic does not preclude a belief in a God."

That, though, is a dishonest shifting of the burden of proof. She might as well have said "Being a skeptic does not preclude a belief in the supernatural/ghosts/auras." It'd be just as true and just as irrelevant. Skepticism does't preclude belief in anything provided that you assert that your belief is justified until disproved. Skepticism is about investigating all claims to discover truth. It's about discovery, not just debunking.

Isn't it one of the core principles of applied skepticism that if something is untestable, then belief is unjustified? How can one justify belief without supporting evidence?

I'm baffled by the unwillingness of some skeptics to state the obvious when it comes to religious claims: they haven't scratched the surface of meeting their burden of proof. Some act as if honestly acknowledging that someone's beliefs are not rational and not consistent with a skeptical assessment of the evidence is somehow a disservice; as if we don't want to hurt the feelings of our skeptical friends who have bought into a particular brand of woo. What sort of friend are you being when you do that?

It's not as if we're trying to kick people out of skeptic groups or exclude them from meetings and events. It's not even as if we're unwilling to consider their case - but pretending that there isn't a dilemma here that should be defended? That's a disservice.

If there's a theistic skeptic who would actually like to defend their views, why not encourage that? Why not arrange for a public debate or panel discussion at TAM9? I suspect that the answer has more to do with image and the perception that such a discussion might alienate people that are otherwise supportive. Honestly, though, I think it probably has more to do with finding a skeptical theist willing to publicly defend that position.

If anyone needed evidence of the pernicious, nefarious, deleterious effects of religious beliefs and their ability to protect themselves while affecting their surroundings; they need look no further than the collection of otherwise committed skeptics who not only shy away from the subject but encourage others to do the same.