|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 04/11/2008 : 21:12:55
|
I have a couple questions that have come up in recent conversations with others, and I'd love you guys' input ('cause I really respect the regulars on this forum and view you as skeptics with dedication and integrity):
What would it mean for a skeptic organization to be religiously neutral?
Can an organization claim to be apolitical, speak out against creationism and ID in public school, and not be hypocritical?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 21:29:39 [Permalink]
|
| What would it mean for a skeptic organization to be religiously neutral? |
If, by "religiously neutral", you mean this organization would apply the same standard of critical thinking and evidence to claims made by all religions...Then you'd have the SFN.
An organization that didn't deal with religious topics at all could probably be described as "religiously neutral".
Can an organization claim to be apolitical, speak out against creationism and ID in public school, and not be hypocritical?
|
No, because that is a political issue. There is probably no such thing as an apolitical person or organization anyway.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 21:58:15 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | If, by "religiously neutral", you mean this organization would apply the same standard of critical thinking and evidence to claims made by all religions...Then you'd have the SFN. |
That's how I'd define it.
| An organization that didn't deal with religious topics at all could probably be described as "religiously neutral". |
If the organization dealt in a wide variety of other topics - alien abductions, psychic powers, etc., but when it comes to religion only dealt with claims which were specifically and explicitly about the nature world (example: miraculous appearances of the Virgin Mary, Jesus or other saints in woodgrain or grilled cheese sandwiches,) but overtly refrained from criticizing bigger, vaguer, and nearly universal claims of religions (such as the claim that there is an afterlife or that God exists) would that organization be engaged in religious neutrality?
| No, because that is a political issue. |
That's what I think too. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 22:50:11 [Permalink]
|
Thinking that the Virgin Mary is actually appearing on a grilled cheese sandwich and claims of an afterlife are the same kind of claim. They both rely on religious faith for support. I doubt them equally and I can't see anything political about where my doubt is coming from.
So yeah. If I skipped over one of those claims, it would probably have to be for political reasons. For some reason, I would not be applying critical thinking on an equal basis. If my reasons were not political, it would probably mean that I am a person of some kind of faith...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2008 : 23:45:48 [Permalink]
|
marfknox asked:
If the organization dealt in a wide variety of other topics - alien abductions, psychic powers, etc., but when it comes to religion only dealt with claims which were specifically and explicitly about the nature world (example: miraculous appearances of the Virgin Mary, Jesus or other saints in woodgrain or grilled cheese sandwiches,) but overtly refrained from criticizing bigger, vaguer, and nearly universal claims of religions (such as the claim that there is an afterlife or that God exists) would that organization be engaged in religious neutrality?
|
No, because the claims you list after my bolding are explicitly about the naatural world. Just because there is no way to prove or disprove a claim doen't mean it should get a free pass. In fact, these types of claims are the most delusional of the religious claims. They are also often the basis of most other claims made by a religion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 02:13:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Can an organization claim to be apolitical, speak out against creationism and ID in public school, and not be hypocritical? |
I suppose it could be claimed to be apolitical in the sense that the organization is not affiliated with any common political party.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 06:25:27 [Permalink]
|
I don't think it will work, because what we may see as neutrality (type 1), they see as political and religious assassination.
Now it certainly could be apolitical, if it were just a discussion group or something with no common ambition. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 07:13:42 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | No, because the claims you list after my bolding are explicitly about the naatural world. Just because there is no way to prove or disprove a claim doen't mean it should get a free pass. |
I totally agree. So to explicitly refrain from dealing with those claims isn't an expression of religious neutrality, it is assigning religious privilege. Would you (or anyone else) agree?
Mabuse wrote: | I suppose it could be claimed to be apolitical in the sense that the organization is not affiliated with any common political party. |
See, I disagree because that would classify groups such as the ACLU and American United for the Separation of Church and State apolitical just because they are party neutral. Being nonpartisan is not the same as being apolitical. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 04/12/2008 : 07:16:59 [Permalink]
|
| What would it mean for a skeptic organization to be religiously neutral? |
It would mean that they are full of that which might hit the fan after this post. Religion is one of those black & white subjects. You either is or you ain't trippin' the Holy-Light Fantastic, some agnostics to the contrary. But let us not forget, there are different species of skeptic. Ham, et al. are skeptical of the ToE, for example.
Of course, they could simply refuse to discuss the topic al all, but that would water down the discussion and indeed, open them to snide remarks about courage of convictions.
| Can an organization claim to be apolitical, speak out against creationism and ID in public school, and not be hypocritical? |
Sure, why not?
These are only political topics if they are made to be so, as ID & others have given themselves hernias attempting to do. In reality, they are about science, or the lack thereof, and the despicable attempts of invading the school's science classes by religion.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 04/12/2008 07:31:35 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 07:26:37 [Permalink]
|
If it isn't obvious by now, I'm asking these questions because I'm dealing with a skeptic organization which claims to be religiously neutral and apolitical but which opposes teaching ID/Creationism in public schools and explicitly refrains from being skeptical of certain types of religious claims. I find this to be hypocritical and likely rooted in fear of deeply offending large groups of people and thus being perceived in a derogatory fashion. But I'm trying to be open enough to other explanations. So far I'm still convinced the leaders have violated the integrity of the organization.
Anyway, I found this paragraph in the wikipedia entry on "God" under "Scientific Positions Regarding God": | Stephen Jay Gould proposed an approach dividing the world of philosophy into what he called "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA). In this view, questions of the supernatural, such as those relating to the existence and nature of God, are non-empirical and are the proper domain of theology. The methods of science should then be used to answer any empirical question about the natural world, and theology should be used to answer questions about ultimate meaning and moral value. In this view, the perceived lack of any empirical footprint from the magisterium of the supernatural onto natural events makes science the sole player in the natural world.[24] Another view, advanced by Richard Dawkins, is that the existence of God is an empirical question, on the grounds that "a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference."[25] A third view is that of scientism: any question which cannot be defined can not be answered by science and is therefore either nonsensical or is not worth asking, on the grounds that only empirically answerable questions make sense and are worth attention. |
This might explain why the group regards itself to be "religiously neutral"; basically they are adopting Gould's stance. The problem I have with that is that the claim of God's literal existence is a claim about reality, not a claim about meaning and morality. Saying that supernatural claims are non-empirical means being able to claim anything without evidence exists so long as it is classified as supernatural.
What sort of mind-bending nonsense is this? I wish people would be more honest with themselves if they are going to defend religion. Say that they are defending it because it really means a whole lot to a lot of individuals and communities, it might even be hardwired into a lot of people, and say that they are convinced that the compartmentalization of most religious people is good enough that their faith won't drive them to make irrational decisions. That all sounds very condescending, and it is very condescending, but that is, as far as I can tell, the real reasons why most agnostics and atheists would bother defending people who accept literal claims of the supernatural. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 07:47:41 [Permalink]
|
Oh dear, oh dear. Marf, you need to send those good folks over here for an honest discussion on skepticism. Skepticism by it's very nature offends large groups of people. Hell, you can almost rank the truth of a skeptic's statement by how many people it pisses off, and these guys're going to offend somebody what ever they do.
"If you gotta be a bear, might's well be a Grizzly!"
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 07:53:19 [Permalink]
|
Marf:
That all sounds very condescending, and it is very condescending, but that is, as far as I can tell, the real reasons why most agnostics and atheists would bother defending people who accept literal claims of the supernatural. |
I would defend their right to believe whatever supernatural thing floats their boat, as long as they keep those beliefs out of schools and government as a matter of policy. I kinda think freedom of religion is a good idea. But at the same time, I am not shy about challenging any supernatural belief to those who hold them, nor am I shy about being openly critical of their belief.
I agree with filthy. The scientists are pushed into defending science by those who falsely claim that scientists have a political agenda and force fit scientific theories to satisfy their agenda. I'm sure the scientists would much rather spend their time doing science than having to respond to ridiculous attacks on science. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 08:21:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
If it isn't obvious by now, I'm asking these questions because I'm dealing with a skeptic organization which claims to be religiously neutral and apolitical but which opposes teaching ID/Creationism in public schools and explicitly refrains from being skeptical of certain types of religious claims. |
Yup. I was skeptical that they were, indeed, "two random questions."| I find this to be hypocritical and likely rooted in fear of deeply offending large groups of people and thus being perceived in a derogatory fashion. |
I concur, and would ask if all such acts of diplomacy are, themselves, political decisions.Anyway, I found this paragraph in the wikipedia entry on "God" under "Scientific Positions Regarding God": | Stephen Jay Gould proposed... |
|
Gould's NOMA attempts to resolve the conflicts between sceince and religion by separating them, but anyone who's had to deal with children knows that separating two kids who don't like each other doesn't really solve the problem, they'll keep crossing whatever line you draw arbitrarily between them in order to restart the conflict.
The fact is that science and skepticism rely upon evidence and self-criticism, while religion does not, and so the conflict isn't about "realms of knowledge" but rather the methods through which knowledge is acquired. Gould's NOMA doesn't address that and so science continues to step all over religion's toes, and vice versa. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 11:32:42 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | The fact is that science and skepticism rely upon evidence and self-criticism, while religion does not, and so the conflict isn't about "realms of knowledge" but rather the methods through which knowledge is acquired. Gould's NOMA doesn't address that and so science continues to step all over religion's toes, and vice versa. |
I agree with you except that I don't use the word "religion" that way. I'd say that religious faith or theological claims or something like that, but I know that's what you mean in this context.
So much confusion comes into play because of the other roles religion plays in society - the social and moral and community identity roles, which are often why people join or stay in a religion. The irrational claims about God and souls that many religions make isn't the only thing which is of religion. The problem is that both religious adherents and critics of religion often don't distinguish between these different realms.
One of the members of this skeptic group I'm having my frustrations with defined "God" as the material universe and natural laws which govern it (basically how Einstein used the term.) But the problem I had with this was that he said in as a partial explanation why his group didn't deal in criticizing claims of God's existence. I agree that this naturalistic God-concept is frequently used by people and I think it is an acceptable use of the term, but it shouldn't be used as something to protect claims of an external, intelligent deity from intellectual criticism or as a tool to hide one's own atheism, thus perpetuating the idea that being an atheist is a bad thing. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/12/2008 11:34:34 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 11:40:11 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: | I would defend their right to believe whatever supernatural thing floats their boat, as long as they keep those beliefs out of schools and government as a matter of policy. I kinda think freedom of religion is a good idea. |
Of course.
| But at the same time, I am not shy about challenging any supernatural belief to those who hold them, nor am I shy about being openly critical of their belief. |
And how effective can any skeptic organization be if they are shy about being openly critical of certain claims, just because it might break some social taboos and offend a larger number of people? In my estimate, not very. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 14:52:18 [Permalink]
|
marf asked:
| I totally agree. So to explicitly refrain from dealing with those claims isn't an expression of religious neutrality, it is assigning religious privilege. Would you (or anyone else) agree? |
In a nutshell, yes.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
two random questions
