Maybe I’m just stuck in a time-loop, because the old familiar arguments keep popping up. Back in 2010, I had to explain to skeptics that Skepticon was a conference of skeptics — they just included religion among the valid topics for criticism. And today, what do I see but that Lauren Lane has to explain that Skepticon is skeptical.
Okay, so we give our skeptical side-eye to a lot of things that other skeptics groups consider to be outside the traditions of the skeptical movement. But skepticism is an approach to finding the truth by valuing evidence and reason, recognizing human biases and limitations, and working to overcome them. Skepticon promotes skeptical thought on a wide range of topics, from bigfoot to bigotry, psychics to society, reflexology to religion. So many ideas can benefit from a skeptical look.
It’s annoying to have to repeatedly explain these basics, but unfortunately one of the traditional activities of many old-school skeptical organizations has been to build fences around certain topics and tell us that we’re not allowed to be skeptical of some sacred cows.
I’m glad Skepticon isn’t afraid to brush past the gate-keepers.
P.S. I’m supposed to remind you to donate to Skepticon.
How the hell can you NOT have religion as a subject of criticism if you are a skeptic?
Oh becasue that goes under the guise of religious skepticism and not as cool as Scientific Skepticism. REAL skeptics know the difference. Or so I’m told.
I’ve always seen the skeptics toolbox as an adjunct to the scientific method. Works in cases where the data isn’t very clear cut, but it does help to separate the actual facts from wishful thinking of the True Believers™.
@dalehusband, because people are friends with religious believers whose beliefs aren’t readily subject to clear proof or disproof, and they want them to be in their organization. Organized skepticism in the US has a history of criticizing certain kinds of religious claims (e.g. creationists or faith healers) while avoiding attacks on belief systems lacking testable claims. There are good reasons to deny the claim that an immortal sentient undetectable to our senses being designed the universe to be exactly as it is, but you can’t disprove that in the way you can intercept radio transmissions to a faith healer.
@qwints,
I agree that certain religious claims cannot be disproven and therefore we can respect those who choose to believe in them. Example: the concept of simple Theism. You cannot prove a negative and since no one has ever conclusively proven any god to exist, it is reasonable for someone to make a personal CHOICE to be a Theist.
What should NEVER be acceptable is for someone who holds a religious belief that has clearly been proven a lie to tell others his lie should be tolerated by skeptics. Example: The Mormon teaching that Native Americans descended from ancient Hebrews long before Europeans discovered the American continents. DNA sequencing long ago proved that the closest relatives to Native Americans are mongoloids (including Chinese, Japanese, and others in east Asia with similar racial characteristics), NOT any of the Semitic peoples!
If it hasn’t been (or can’t be) proven or disproven, how would that entail it’s reasonable or respectable? Where did your conclusion come from?
If you don’t (or can’t) have a reason for believing something, I call that “unreasonable.” If it isn’t proven or disproven, it doesn’t follow that you have a reason.
I don’t know if CHOICE has anything to do with it, but since it’s in all-caps…. Where was it established that this personal choice is reasonable or respectable? What’s the reason and what is there to respect about it?
Shouldn’t we be appreciating and valuing and respecting ideas that are supported (if not “proven”)? Sounds like a decent criterion to me, although it may not be exhaustive. What else is there to appreciate or value or respect, when that condition isn’t met? Why assume there must be something when it isn’t met?
I do not know, what would be a specific claim of a real existing religion that could not be disproved or proved?
I never heard one from the catholic brothers that taught me “religion” speak of any though they were smart enough to insist on faith not prof with evidence and reason.
the existence of a god , the existence of an immortal soul while they might not be provable or disprovable the existence of no named specific god is satisfied by that lack of prof
so yes all religion can and should be questioned by everyone.
all of their stories involving supernatural events and beings are made up all of them are highly embellished with artifice piously and not so piously applied.
uncle frogy
I think there is a bigger problem that it has been six years because of the churn – How many people is this going to their first skepticon or Skeptical conference at all or they have been in the movement for less than six years. People are going in and out of the movement. You always need some 101 topics going around at any conferences.
Of course one can prove a negative. If one is looking and see no elephant in the backyard, then one can be darn sure there is no elephant in the backyard.
Also: The non-existence of aether: check. The non-existence of homeopathic effect: check. The non-existence of Yahweh: check.
rietpluim@9, Yer forgetting about ninja elephants. There’s nine of them in yer backyard right now (ten if you count the one in the neighbour’s tree).
Can I just say that Skepticon is awesome? If you have a chance to go, I highly recommend it.