Skepticism

FtBCon: Videos Are Up — and a Survey!

Greta Christina1 Comment

ftb conscience

FtBConscience, the online conference hosted by Freethought Blogs, is over. But all the sessions are available online! I wasn’t able to attend a lot of it (I had an all-day thing I was doing on Saturday), but Ingrid and I are going through a bunch of the sessions we missed… and so far, they’ve been fascinating.

If you missed some or all of this conference, and want to check them out… well, that’s the glory of an online conference. All the sessions were recorded as they were happening, and you can check any or all of them out right now! Just go to the conference schedule, click on the title of the session you want to watch, and scroll down to the video!

If you’re particularly interested in the sessions I was part of, you can go directly there: Sex & Skepticism (with me, Ginny Brown, Franklin Veaux, Benny, Sophie Hirschfeld, and Miri M.), and Atheism and Grief (with me, Rebecca Hensler, Nicome Taylor and Hank Fox).

And if you did watch/ participate in some or all of the conference, please take a moment to fill out our survey! We’re hoping to do more of these in the future, and your input will help us make it even awesomer. (And yes, “awesomer” is a word, Haven’t you heard the line in that song, “A trip to the moon on awesomer wings”? That’s how it goes, right?) Anyway.

FtBCon: Videos Are Up — and a Survey!
{advertisement}

Secular Meditation: "Energy," and Attention/ Awareness

Greta Christina16 Comments

energy-perspectives-problems-prospects-michael-b-mcelroy-hardcover-cover-art
So what does this “energy” thing mean, anyway?

I don’t mean literal, physical energy. I more or less understand that. I mean “energy” in the supernatural/ metaphysical/ woo bullshit sense. And specifically, what does it mean for a meditation practice?

Here’s what I’m talking about. As regular readers know, I’ve recently begun a secular meditation/ mindfulness practice, based on the evidence-based Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction techniques. I do a few different practices, depending on where I am and how much time I have… but the core of my practice, at least for now, is something called a “body scan,” in which I focus my attention on each part of my body in turn, starting with my feet and moving up to the top of my head, noticing thoughts and distractions as they arise and acknowledging them without judgment and then gently letting them go to return my attention to the body part in question. When I first started doing the body scan practice, I basically had to say the words to myself, in my head, “Heel. Heel. Pay attention to your left heel. Heel. Okay, moving on to the big toe. Big toe. Pay attention to your big toe. Okay, that’s an interesting thought drifting into your consciousness: notice it, don’t judge it, let it go, return your attention to your big toe. Big toe. Big toe. Okay… now little toe.”

But as I get more familiar with the practice — more practiced, I guess — this has been shifting. The verbal instructions to myself are becoming less necessary. It’s becoming easier to just experience my body, to just feel it, without having to name the parts. If I’m more tired, or more stressed out, I need more of the verbal directions… but I’m needing them less and less. (In a “two steps forward, one step back” way.)

And as I get less dependent on the verbal catalog to keep me focused on my body, and become more able to just experience my body for what it is, this… thing has been happening.

Instead of controlling or directing the body scan, it’s just been happening by itself. Continue reading “Secular Meditation: "Energy," and Attention/ Awareness” →

Secular Meditation: "Energy," and Attention/ Awareness

Does Social Justice Activism Mean Mission Drift for Atheism and Skepticism?

Greta Christina51 Comments

If the atheist and skeptical movements focus on political and social justice issues, will that constitute mission drift?

No.

Okay. I realize that’s not a very satisfying answer. How about this: Nothing that anyone I know is advocating in this department constitutes mission drift. Sure, there are some ways this could hypothetically happen, if that does ever wind up happening it’d be worth commenting on or even pushing back on… but it doesn’t automatically and by definition constitute that, and the kinds of things that the social-justice crowd are advocating don’t fall into that category at all.

That may not be satisfying, either. Let me spell it out in a little more detail.

mission statement book
Myself, and the other people I know of who are advocating for the atheist and skeptical movements to focus more on social justice issues, are not proposing that these movements change their basic missions in any way. We simply want for these movements to expand the appeal of atheism and skepticism to demographics we haven’t traditionally attracted, by focusing part of our attention on issues that these people care about and that are still totally in our wheelhouse. We are basically advocating for two things:

(1) that these movements expand the focus of their existing missions into new areas having to do with politics and social justice, in ways that are consistent with those existing missions and that constitute clear overlap between those missions and these issues;

(2) that the organizations in these movements pay attention to these issues in internal matters, such as hiring and event organizing.

Let’s take #1 first. And let’s look first at skepticism.

The skeptical movement, and the main skeptical organizations, are focused (at least in theory) on doing activism and education around applying rationality, critical thinking skills, the scientific method, and the prioritization of evidence to address testable questions about non-subjective reality. It’s not about advocating for any specific conclusions — it’s about advocating for the methods, and the principles of valuing reality and truth that underlie those methods. In practice, it often doesn’t play out this way — in practice, for instance, the skeptical movements are strongly pro-vaccination and anti-creationism, and are pretty comfortable supporting the one position and opposing the other quite vehemently, and doing so qua skeptics. But yes, at least in theory, you could be a skeptic and a vaccine denialist: there’s no position that constitutes a litmus test for being a skeptic.

Sure. Fine.

So why can’t all that rationality, critical thinking skills, scientific method, and prioritization of evidence be applied to testable claims having to do with social justice?

DEA: DEA agents in Detroit, Michigan Spike TV
Testable claims about social justice issues get made all the time. Yes, some social justice questions have to do with basic values that can’t really be settled by methods of rationality… but a whole lot of them don’t. Lots of them are questions about what is and is not factually, testably true. The claim that people have unconscious racial biases which affect our behavior is a testable claim. The claim that children raised in same-sex relationships grow up with deep psychological problems is a testable claim. The claim that people act significantly differently towards infants we think are male and infants we think are female is a testable claim. Proponents of the drug war make testable claims that certain practices and policies have certain results: that zero-tolerance for drug law violations, long sentences for people who break drug laws, significant resources being spent on investigation and enforcement of drug laws, etc., will result in less drug use and fewer negative consequences from drug use. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Why would it constitute mission drift for the skeptical movement to focus attention and research — and the advocacy of rational, evidence-based thinking — on these claims?

In fact, the skeptical movement is already focusing on political and social justice issues: with its focus on global warming denialism, for instance, or its questioning of the value of organic food. Given that this is true, why is there such strong pushback from so many people against the very notion of the skeptical movement focusing on other political and social justice issues, and such fear that this will pull skepticism away from its roots?

And now let’s look at atheism. The atheist movement, and the main atheist organizations, are focused (at least in theory) on advocating for the acceptance and civil rights of atheists, advocating for church/state separation, creating communities and support systems for atheists, and opposing the harm done by religion. (With different focuses from different organizations, of course.)

abstinence chalkboard
So why would it constitute mission drift for the atheist movement to focus on how religion harms people by undermining social justice? Why would it be mission drift to focus on the harm done by abstinence-only sex education; by the influence of the religious right on reproductive rights; by the influence of the religious right on public education and economic policy; by fraudulent preachers and psychics preying on impoverished communities? Why would it constitute mission drift to work on making our communities and support systems more welcoming to a wider spectrum of people, and to look at ways that these communities might be alienating some populations without intending to? Why would it constitute mission drift to look at ways that advancing acceptance and civil rights for atheists might work differently in different communities and demographics, and to adapt our work accordingly?

And in fact, just like with the skeptical movement, the atheist movement is already doing this. The atheist movement has, for instance, taken on the issue of gay rights and same-sex marriage, and has done so with passion and energy. Religious bigotry against gay people, and the myriad ways this bigotry has injured so many people, is one of the most prominent issues for the atheist movement, and has been for years. Given that this is true, why is there such strong pushback from so many people against the very notion of the atheist movement focusing on other political and social justice issues, and such fear that this will pull atheism away from its roots?

Why should the people who are already in the skeptical and atheist movements, the people who have been in the skeptical movements for years, be the ones to decide which topics are core issues for atheism and skepticism, and which ones are on the fringe?

Why is the very idea of expanding the appeal of atheism and skepticism to demographics we haven’t traditionally attracted, by focusing on issues that these people care about and that are still very much in our wheelhouse, being viewed with such suspicion and hostility?

Why should the agenda get to be set by the old guard?

Okay. So now let’s take a quick look at #2: asking skeptical and atheist organizations to pay attention to social justice issues in internal matters, such as hiring and event organizing.

This one won’t take long. It’s kind of a no-brainer. Or it should be.

equal opportunity employer logo
Does it constitute mission drift for skeptical and atheist organizations to adopt fair hiring practices and be equal opportunity employers? To have day care at meetings and conferences? To have student rates for conferences? To have meetings and events near public transportation, as much as possible? To have sign language interpreters at events? To have events at locations that are wheelchair accessible?

How would any of this change the mission of these organizations? Any more than it would change the mission of IBM, or the Audubon Society?

And if it wouldn’t… then why would it be mission drift for skeptical and atheist organizations to adopt affirmative action practices in booking speakers? To oppose the overt harassment and misogyny persistently aimed at women in our communities? To have codes of conduct at conferences?

You might agree with all of these policies, or with none of them, or with some but not others. You might agree with some of them in principle, but have issues with how they’re currently playing out in practice. But why are objections to these policies being presented as “mission drift”?

Why should the people who are already in the skeptical and atheist movements, the people who have been in the skeptical movements for years, be the ones to decide which internal policies are core issues for atheism and skepticism, and which ones are on the fringe?

Why is the very idea of expanding the appeal of atheism and skepticism to demographics we haven’t traditionally attracted, by changing internal policies in ways that these people care about and that are still consistent with our missions, being viewed with such suspicion and hostility?

Why should the agenda get to be set by the old guard?

I know. It’s really one of those questions that answers itself… isn’t it?

Note: Since I’m starting to have issues with writings about controversies and debates within the movement that don’t say who and what exactly they’re responding to: This piece was written in response to Jamy Ian Swiss’s talk at the Orange County Freethought Alliance conference. However, it’s a idea I’ve been thinking about for some time: this talk was simply the catalyst.

Does Social Justice Activism Mean Mission Drift for Atheism and Skepticism?

Infighting or Healthy Debate?

Greta Christina14 Comments

This was originally published in Free Inquiry magazine.

Arguing
In the skeptic and atheist communities, we often wring our hands over how much infighting we do. Every time another firestorm of controversy eats the Internet, many of us become alarmed at the rifts dividing our community: weakening us, burning us out, making it harder for us to work together on issues we have in common, and draining our time and energy from the battles we all share.

Yet at the same time, one of the things we value most about our community is our willingness to disagree: with our leaders, with our heroes, with one another. We understand that dissent and debate are how good ideas rise to the surface and bad ideas get winnowed out, and we relish the fact that we have no dogma we’re all expected to line up behind.

So where is the line between infighting and healthy debate?

I strongly suspect that, much of the time, we draw these distinctions very subjectively. If we personally think an argument is important, then of course it’s a healthy debate; if we’re finding an argument either boring or upsetting, then it’s obviously divisive infighting. It’s the old “emotive conjugation” thing: I am debating; you are infighting; they are creating deep rifts.

So I’d like to propose some possible semi-objective standards for deciding whether a disagreement in our community is infighting or healthy debate. Or rather, since I think this difference isn’t a clear either/or dichotomy: I’d like to propose some standards for where to draw the line on the “infighting/ healthy debate” continuum. (This isn’t meant to be the final word on the subject, by the way. I’m very much thinking out loud here, I’m sure there are ideas that I’m missing, and I want this to be the start of a conversation rather than the end of one.) Continue reading “Infighting or Healthy Debate?” →

Infighting or Healthy Debate?

On Starting a Secular Meditation Practice

Greta Christina29 Comments

So I’ve started a secular meditation practice. As you probably guessed from the title of this piece.

Meditating in urban environment
I’ve been interested in meditation for a long time. It offers, or seems to offer, some things I’m in great need of: peace, calm, the ability to be present in the here and now, the ability to sit still, the ability to not constantly be either in motion or feeding my brain with stimulation, the ability to stay centered and focused and keep my mind from racing in a million directions at once like a hummingbird on meth. I have friends who practice it and find great value in it. And I know there’s research in neurology and neuropsychology supporting the idea that this isn’t just woo bullshit: research supporting the idea that a meditation practice can reduce stress and help in the management of anxiety and depression. The folks who originally came up with this meditation thing do seem to have found something of genuine utility: they framed it in supernatural terms which I obviously don’t accept, but the idea that certain physical and mental practices can alter one’s consciousness, temporarily and longer-term, is pretty well-understood, and doesn’t seem particularly controversial to me.

Am noticing that I’m feeling defensive about this. Am noticing that I’m worried that the atheist/ materialist/ skeptical/ secular community is going to jump all over me about this, and accuse me of getting suckered into pseudo-scientific quasi-religion. Part of this practice is noticing my emotions and physical feelings, acknowledging them rather than fighting them or denying them or trying to fix them, and moving on. Doing that now.

The particular set of physical and mental practices I’m learning is called Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction. I first heard about it at a Science in the Cafe event, a presentation given by a neurologist and neurological researcher (from Stanford, if I recall correctly) who talked about MBSR in a larger talk on current thinking in the science of consciousness. I’ve been interested in meditation for a long time… but I’ve been resistant to pursuing any version of it that’s set in any religious or spiritual setting whatsoever. I do have atheist/ materialist friends who don’t have any problem with that, who can take what they need and leave the rest, who can filter out the supernatural noise or re-frame it in a secular/ materialist framework. But I know myself. I know how irritating I find religion and spirituality, even in small doses. I know that the minute I starting hearing the woo bullshit, I’d be knocked right out of my meditation and into a whole series of arguments and rants in my head. (One of the downsides of being a professional atheist and anti-theist, I suppose.)

So when I heard about Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction, I got very excited. And when I found out that Kaiser (my insurance company/ health maintenance organization) was offering classes in it, done in a medical setting rather than a religious or spiritual one, I jumped at it.

I’m very much in my baby steps with this right now: I’ve been taking this class for a couple of weeks, and have been meditating regularly — daily — for just a few days. And I’m having a lot of scattered thoughts/ feelings/ opinions/ reactions/ experiences with this, and about this. I’m certainly noticing an immediate benefit: after a session of meditation, I feel calmer, more centered, less jangled, more present in the world and better able to take it in. (Of course, being a skeptic, I know that this could be confirmation bias, placebo effect, any number of deceptive cognitive errors. At the moment, though, I’m willing to trust the current science that I’ve seen, showing that this effect does seem to be real.) I’m also noticing some anxieties about it: mostly having to do with whether the “be here now/ accept reality as it is/ let go of striving” philosophy that seems to underpin the practice is consistent with either my ambition or my passion for social change. I think I’m okay with that, though: I know that self-care is an important part of not burning out on both work and activism, and this practice has potential to be a powerful way to take care of myself. And then of course, this being me, I’m having all sorts of anxieties about whether I’m doing it right. :p

But the thought about meditation that I mostly want to focus on today has to do with how I’m framing this practice in an atheist/ materialist context.

Foot
The core of the practice — so far, anyway, right now I’m just in the baby-steps stage — is to sit or lie quietly, focus on your breathing, and then focus your attention on each part of your body in turn: focus your attention on the big toe of your left foot, your little toe, the toes in between, the sole of your left foot, the top of your left foot, your left ankle… etc. all the way through your body and up to the top of your head. (It’s called a “body scan,” and it’s not limited to meditation: I’ve done it in acting classes and other contexts.) When distractions arise, either from the outside world or from inside your head, you acknowledge them, recognize them, accept them without judgment, and then let them go, and return your focus to the body part you’re focusing on.

And what I’ve been noticing, in these baby-steps days of the practice, is how valuable it is to return my attention to my body.

Or, maybe more accurately: How valuable it is to remember that I am my body.

As a materialist, I talk a lot about how we are our bodies: how we have no immaterial souls animating our bodies, how our thoughts and feelings and consciousness and our very selfhood are biological products, constructions of the brain and the rest of the body. But I also have a strong tendency to live in that part of my body between my ears: to live in ideas and abstractions, worries and imaginings, plans and fantasies. (Especially fantasies.) When I’m meditating, and I find myself getting distracted by my own brain — and when I then return my focus to my knee or my ears or whatever part of my body I’m focusing on — the thought that’s been filtering into me as I settle back in is, “I am my body.”

Neck and face muscles
It’s almost becoming a secular mantra. I am my body. I am my knee, my belly, my fingers, my neck, every bit as much as I am my plans and ideas and fears and goals. In fact, my knee and my belly and my fingers and my neck are part and parcel of my plans and ideas and fears and goals: they’re not separate from them, they inform them and shape them, and are informed and shaped by them. They are intertwined, part of the same physical being.

When I spend my time in my head, the experience is often one of feeling very detached from my body. Even though I know, intellectually, that my ideas and so on are products of my squishy biological brain, the feeling is often like having my data stored in a cloud system: off in the ether, accessible by my hardware but separate from it. And among other things, this experience makes it harder to focus: it tends to fragment my attention, jangle my nerves, turn me into a hummingbird on meth.

So I can see how it might be useful, as a materialist, to spend forty-five minutes every day remembering that I am not data stored in a cloud system. I am my body. I can see how it might be useful, as a materialist, to spend forty-five minutes every day returning my attention to my body, and reminding myself that this body — this ankle, this hipbone, this ribcage, this heart, this elbow, this jaw, this scalp, this brain — is who I am.

Related post:
Atheism and Sensuality

<small)("Meditating in urban environment" image by Louwrents.)

On Starting a Secular Meditation Practice

How to Critique Harassment Policies — And How Really, Really Not To

Greta Christina22 Comments

If there’s a small problem with one part of a generally good rule or law or policy, is it best to modify that part of the rule/ law/ policy… or to scrap the entire thing? Or, indeed, to scrap the entire notion of rules and laws and policies?

There’s been some recent conversation about sexual harassment policies/ codes of conduct at atheist/ skeptical conferences. (Yes, still. This is still a thing. There are still people insisting that having rules at conferences will ruin the fun for everyone. Seriously.) In particular, there’s been conversation about the harassment policy at the recent SkepTech conference, which read, in part:

Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks.

There’s been conversation about the fact that there was a panel at SkepTech specifically about sex (“Sex in Cyberspace; Porn, Okcupid and the Internet”), a panel at which sex was obviously discussed, and at which there was obviously sexual language. And there’s been conversation about whether the existence of this panel was in violation of the harassment policy.

Here’s the thing.

I actually think the part of the SkepTech harassment policy/ code of conduct being discussed was somewhat unclear, and needed some adjustment. I think it would have been better and clearer if, instead, the policy had read something like this:

Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any official conference venue, including talks/ panels/ presentations, except when directly relevant to the topic of the talk/ panel/ presentation.

That was the obvious intent, and it seems to have been taken as such by everyone at the conference. But yes, I think it would have been better if this intent had been spelled out.

So again, here’s my question: If there’s a small problem with one part of a generally good rule or law or policy, is it best to modify that part of the rule/ law/ policy… or to scrap the entire thing? Or, indeed, to scrap the entire notion of rules and laws and policies at conference — of any kind, at all?

Let’s make an analogy. Let’s say that a city or county or country had laws against assault, and the section of the legal code banning assault basically said, “It’s against the law to hit people.” (Yes, I know, harassment policies/ codes of conduct at conferences aren’t laws, and shouldn’t be laws. This is an analogy.) Let’s say that the section of the legal code banning assault didn’t make a clearly specified exception for hitting people in self-defense, hitting people in defense of someone else who’s in immediate danger, or hitting people in consensual situations such as contact sports and consensual sadomasochism.

If someone responded to this by saying, “Well, this part of the legal code obviously doesn’t make sense — therefore, let’s scrap the whole thing. In fact, let’s scrap the entire idea of having laws at all. Having laws is infantilizing and insulting: it insults the morality and integrity and intelligence of everyone in this city/ county/ country, by treating everyone as potential criminals. Also, this part of the law isn’t always enforced consistently — and that obviously undermines the very idea of having a law. Any law, not just this one. And besides, the law can’t be written perfectly, some people will maliciously game the law and find loopholes in it — so again, the entire concept of having laws is bankrupt, and should be abandoned.”… would you consider that a reasonable response?

Or instead, would the reasonable response be to say, “Well, this part of the legal code obviously doesn’t make sense, and can’t be enforced consistently as written — so let’s revise it so it makes sense”? Would the reasonable response be to add in a section making it clear that self-defense, defense of others, and consensual situations are exceptions to the laws against assault?

I have no problems with people critiquing the specifics of harassment policies and codes of conduct at atheist/ skeptical conferences. These policies and codes are relatively new to atheist/ skeptical conferences — it’s actually kind of embarrassing just how new they are, given how standard it is for conferences in every other field to these policies — and they are therefore works in progress. (To give a different example: Many conferences have had policies banning offensive comments related to religion — written in language which, strictly interpreted, would ban 80% of the content at an atheist conference. So some conferences have been revising their policies, making it clear that people of all religious beliefs are welcome at the conference, and hostile behavior towards people based on their religious affiliation is not acceptable… but that criticism of religious ideas is obviously fair game.) These policies are embarrassingly new, they’re works in progress, and some of them could use refining.

So yeah. If people have good-faith critiques of the specifics of conference harassment policies/ codes of conduct, I think most conference organizers would want to hear them.

But if critiques of harassment policies/ codes of conduct are steeped in a persistent rejection of the very idea of conferences having any policy or code whatsoever — if they’re steeped in the contemptuous trivialization and dismissal of the very real problem of sexual and other harassment at conferences, and in the idea that this problem can just be ignored — I don’t think we need to take them seriously.

How to Critique Harassment Policies — And How Really, Really Not To

My Skyped-In Talk at Skepticon 5, or, Greta's Giant Floating Wizard of Oz Head Speaks!

Greta Christina11 Comments

In an entertainingly weird form of meta-technology, here is a YouTube video of my Skyped-in talk at Skepticon 5. I had to cancel my scheduled talk at Skepticon 5, which was sad and frustrating and drove me up a fucking tree. In fact, when I was talking with my oncologist about scheduling my hysterectomy, for about three nanoseconds I considered postponing it until after Skepticon. I love Skepticon, it’s one of my favorite events on the atheist calendar, and I hated that I had to miss it.

But the Skepticon organizers set it up so that I could make an appearance anyway, via the wonders of 21st century technology. So here is the YouTube video of me giving my talk, and taking questions, in the form of a giant floating head on the video screen, Skyped-in remotely from San Francisco to Missouri. I am the great and powerful Oz!

My topic… well, I didn’t bother give this talk a title, since it was pretty specific to these circumstances and I’m unlikely to repeat it. But if I were to give it one, it would probably be, “How Atheism and Skepticism Help in a Shitstorm.” In it, I talk about how atheism, humanism, materialism, naturalism, and skepticism have helped me through the difficulties of the last couple of months… and why I think these comforts and supports are stronger and more powerful than the false ones offered by religion. Ingrid also makes a brief appearance, as does Houdini.

It was a deeply weird experience: I couldn’t see or hear anything that was happening on the Missouri end of things, so from my end it just felt like a very long-winded Skype call. It’s weird giving a talk when you can’t see or hear your audience, and so can’t gauge their reactions and adjust your talk accordingly. Also, some people were watching it live through streaming, which added yet another layer of techno-meta to the proceedings. Also, I was hopped up on Vicodin. Watching it now, I’m kind of amazed that I managed to be that coherent. But as weird as it was, I’m very glad I was able to do it, and am deeply grateful to the Skepticon organizers and technicians who made it happen. Enjoy!

My Skyped-In Talk at Skepticon 5, or, Greta's Giant Floating Wizard of Oz Head Speaks!

Want To Help Me? Help Skepticon!

Greta Christina3 Comments

Skepticon 5 logo

Do you want to help me out? Help Skepticon. They’ve hit a major last-minute roadblock, and they need our help — now.

Skepticon is one of the most incredible and inspiring events in the atheist/ skeptical calendar. Organized at a grass-roots level by a student organization, it has become one of the largest and most exciting conferences we have… and it is, and has always been, entirely free of charge. It’s important to the organizers that the conference be accessible, to students and working-class folks and others who don’t have the funds to attend expensive conferences. If folks can work out the travel and the lodging — and the Skepticon organizers work hard to help people work out the travel and lodging — they can attend this conference. Skepticon is, and has always been, entirely funded by donations and fundraising.

And they need our help — now — to keep it going forward this year.

Here’s a letter about all this from Skepticon organizer Lauren Lane.

Dear Internet,

Let me start by first saying that I love ALL of your faces. I do.

So, as you may have heard, Skepticon is happening soon and I am so excited! WOOO!

But, here’s the thing. There’s a catch. I know, I know–there is always a catch, but this one is pretty important. Skepticon is in a bit of a tough spot. This year, we had to secure a bigger venue, and that means that it’s more expensive to put on.

If I had all the money in the world, I would put on Skepticon for free every year, but sadly (both for me and the world) that is not the case. We need donations to keep Skepticon running, especially now as we are faced with a larger obstacle than we had originally thought.

Every time I express my worry about Skepticon’s financial situation, I am faced with comments about we ‘should just start charging.’ I won’t lie to you all, doing that would make things much easier financially. If everyone who came to Skepticon gave us $5, we would easily be able to fund ourselves.

But we won’t start doing that. Ever. As far as I am concerned, as long as all of you continue to believe in and support us, then we are willing to put in the work to make this event free to attend. We want any and everyone who can make it out to Springfield freaking’ Missouri to be able to be here with us.

We want you here. We want this event to happen. We need your help.

Hearts and kisses,

Lauren

Now, as many of my readers know, I recently did a fundraiser here on this blog, to help cover my expenses while I recover from cancer surgery. As readers also may know, I stopped that fundraiser about a day after it started, even though word about the fundraiser was still being spread and donations were still coming in, since I’d already raised all the money I needed and then some.

So if you heard about the “help Greta get through her cancer surgery” fundraiser after I’d already asked people to stop making donations… and you still feel motivated to help out? Please help me, by helping Skepticon.

I was supposed to speak at Skepticon 5. My cancer surgery threw a monkey wrench into that plan, although we’re hoping that I’m well enough by November 9 to get me Skyped in. But even though I can’t be there in person, my heart and my non-existent soul will be there all weekend. This event means the world to me — and it means the world to hundreds of people who are attending, or who have attended in the past, or who hope to attend in the future.

Ingrid and I just donated $100.00 to keep Skepticon going. Please chip in what you can. Thanks.

Want To Help Me? Help Skepticon!

Why Atheism Plus Is Good for Atheism

Greta Christina192 Comments

Atheism Plus logo
I’m going to lay this out there: I think Atheism Plus is good. And I don’t just mean “good” in the sense of “morally right.” I mean “good” as in “good for the health and future of atheism.”

As most readers here know, Jen McCreight recently proposed a new wave of atheism — an “atheist plus” wave that explicitly focuses, not just on atheism, but on the intersections between atheism and racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other social justice issues — externally in what issues we take on, and internally in how we deal with our own stuff. I’ve already chimed in briefly with a “Hell, yes, I’m on board.” I now want to start talking about why.

I don’t just think the principles of Atheism Plus are morally right. I do think that, and I think that’s the most important thing about it. But I also think it’s good for the future of atheism. And I think atheism will be stronger if more atheists support it.

Much of the pushback on the Atheism Plus idea has come from people saying that it’s divisive: that the atheist movement has to include everyone who calls themselves an atheist, and we can’t expect every atheist to line up around the same social justice issues.

There is no nice way to say this, so I’m just going to come out and say it:

There is no way for an atheist movement to be inclusive of everyone.

An atheist movement cannot be inclusive of atheist women… and also be inclusive of people who publicly call women ugly, fat, sluts, whores, cunts, and worse; who persistently harass them; who deliberately invade their privacy and make their personal information public; and/or who routinely threaten them with grisly violence, rape, and death.

An atheist movement cannot be inclusive of atheists of color… and also be inclusive of people who think people of color stay in religion because they’re just not good at critical thinking, who blame crime on dark-skinned immigrants, who think victims of racial profiling deserved it because they looked like thugs, and/or who tell people of color, “You’re pretty smart for a…”.

An atheist movement cannot be inclusive of trans atheists… and also be inclusive of people who think trans people are mentally ill or freaks of nature.

An atheist movement cannot be inclusive of atheists who are mentally ill… and also be inclusive of people who think mental illness is just a failure of willpower.

An atheist movement cannot be inclusive of poor atheists… and also be inclusive of people whose basic attitude to systematic poverty and economic injustice is, “Screw you, Jack, I’ve got mine.”

Repeat, for many more marginalized groups that I don’t have time to list here.

And an atheist movement cannot be inclusive of atheists and potential atheists who are women, people of color, trans people, poor people, mentally ill… and also be inclusive of people who think that welcoming these people into the movement just isn’t a very high priority. The movement cannot be inclusive of atheists and potential atheists who are women, people of color, trans people, poor people, mentally ill… and also be inclusive of people who think sexism, racism, misogyny, transphobia, poverty, mental illness, and other forms of marginalization are trivial or non-existent problems that we can’t be bothered with.

There is literally no way to make the atheist movement inclusive of all these people. So we have to ask: What are our priorities? Continue reading “Why Atheism Plus Is Good for Atheism” →

Why Atheism Plus Is Good for Atheism

Race and Inclusivity — A To-Do List

Greta Christina68 Comments

Atheist A scarlet letter black background
If we want the atheist/ skeptical communities to be more inclusive and more welcoming to people of color — what, specifically, can we do about it?

IMPORTANT NOTE: This post has a different comment policy than my standard one. It’s at the end of the post. Please read it and respect it. Thanks.

At the Secular Student Alliance conference earlier this month, the organizers did something really smart, something I’ve never seen before. At the lunch on Saturday, they had cards on the tables with discussion topics, topics that had been announced ahead of time in the conference packet — so you could pick which table to sit on, based on what you wanted to talk about. Not all the tables stuck to their topic… but ours did, and I’m really glad we did, and I want to report on the conversation.

I sat at the “Diversity — Minorities” table. And we had an excellent conversation. We talked about how, as difficult and painful as our community’s conversations about gender and sexism have been, at least we’ve been having them — in a way that we haven’t been, nearly as much, about race. The community has done a lot more work on gender diversity than we have on racial diversity, and we’re a lot further along in making practical progress. We talked at this lunch about some of the reasons this might be. (Some ideas floated: Our society is often racially segregated, and white people can ignore race in a way that men can’t ignore gender. Also, liberals and progressives often see race as a minefield, and are often scared to even talk about it for fear of starting a fight, opening old wounds, or saying something stupid.)

We talked about some of the obstacles to increasing racial diversity and making people of color feel more welcomed in the atheist movement. And we talked about what specific, practical action items people could take — individuals, local groups, national organizations, thought leaders, etc. — to improve this situation. I wanted to share that list, and talk about it, and solicit other ideas.

Here’s the list of action items we came up with:

* Speakers — invite more people of color as speakers, at conferences and for individual speaking events. (Here’s a list of prominent atheists of color, many of whom do public speaking. The list also includes organizations of atheists of color, some of whom have speaker’s bureaus or can put you in touch with speakers.)
* Don’t be afraid to talk about race. (This one is HUGE.)
* Do joint events with groups/ organizations of people of color. (Examples: speakers or discussions groups on the history of freethought among African-Americans, or the golden age of science in the Arab world.)
* Support appropriate events hosted by groups of people of color, such as service projects. Don’t just ask them to co-sponsor your events — ask them what events of theirs they’d like your support for.
* Don’t glom onto people of color when they show up at your group or event. (People of color sometimes say that, when they show up at all- or mostly-white atheist groups or events, they’re swarmed by overly friendly people who are SO DELIGHTED that a non-white person has shown up, in a way that’s overwhelming, and that’s clearly directed at their race. Don’t do this.)
* Don’t expect individual people of color to speak for their entire race.
* Listen to people of color — actively.
* Get your “Race and Racism 101” on Google or at the library. Don’t expect people of color who come to your group or event to bring you up to speed.
* If someone calls you on your stuff — apologize.
* If someone calls you on your stuff, and you don’t agree — don’t immediately get defensive. Think about it, ask questions, take some time before you respond. “I’m not sure I agree, but I thank you for bringing it up, I need to think about this” can be your best friend.
* Don’t assume people of color are religious.
* Co-protesting – show up at protests about racism, and about issues that are strongly affected by race, such as economic justice or the drug war.

Thoughts?

COMMENT POLICY FOR THIS THREAD: This conversation is for people who already agree that increasing racial diversity is important to the atheist community and the atheist movement, and who think positive action should be taken to improve the situation, and who want to discuss how to go about that. If you want to debate this core proposition — if, for instance, you think the atheist movement should be entirely race-blind, and that paying any attention at all to race and racism is itself racist — this comment thread is not the place. Read these two pieces first: Getting It Right Early: Why Atheists Need to Act Now on Gender and Race, and Race, Gender, and Atheism, Part 2: What We Need To Do — And Why. Actually read them. If, after reading them, you still think we can and should ignore race and racial diversity, please feel free to debate that question on those posts. This is not the place for that debate. Attempts to derail this conversation, away from what the problems are and we can do about them and into whether this is even a problem and whether we should be doing anything, will be met with warnings, disemvoweling, banning, or any/all of the above. Thank you.

Race and Inclusivity — A To-Do List