I just listened to a skeptically-oriented podcast called 'Skepticality' (episode 57) as I've been working my way through past episodes. This particular show featured Dr. Hal Bidlack, an esteemed-member of the James Randi Educational foundation which holds a yearly gathering of skeptics called 'The Amazing Meeting' aka 'TAM'.
James 'The Amazing' Randi plied his early trade as a magician and illusionist, but like Harry Houdini of our time, he's also a lifelong skeptic. Randi appeared on the Johnny Carson show numerous times and has traveled around the world debunking false claims and woo such as those perpetuated by spoon-bender Uri Geller, faith 'healers' such as Peter Popoff and self-proclaimed 'psychics' such as Sylvia Browne.
Most famously, The Randi Foundation has for a long time offered the Million Dollar Challenge to anyone (including Geller, Popoff and Browne) who can prove claimed supernatural abilities under controlled, mututually agreed-upon conditions. Nobody has claimed the million dollars, much less even passed the screening process.
As Master of Ceremonies for the Randi Foundation's 'Amazing Meeting', Hal Bidlack is a self-labeled skeptic who also calls himself a 'deist'. Therein lies the conflict. How is it that a self-labeled deist is also Master of Ceremonies at one of the most famous skeptical organizations in the world? Please note, this is not to say he shouldn't be Master of Ceremonies, nor is my intent to infer that he shouldn't be welcome in any sense...the skeptical community needs all the members it can get.
My question is, how can someone (not just Hal) call himself a skeptic but manage to hold the idea that some kind of 'God' exists or existed in the past?
Let's clarify what a 'deist' is. A deist believes that there is a non-intervening God....and that basically a 'God' of some undefined sort basically spun the Universe into motion and stopped answering phone calls...forever.
In this episode of Skepticality, Bidlack has a monologue. Here are some quotes relating to his deism and his understandable lamentation about conflicts with skepticism. You might spot why I take issue with his stance on his deism and how his insecurity about this causes him to be a bit disenfranchised with the 'skeptical movement'....
'...and thus it pains me to find myself increasingly uncomfortable in the company of skeptics who seem intent sometimes to bring an opposite and equal fundamentalist passion to issues of faith. At TAM 5 no less than three well-intentioned individuals attempted to save me from my non-atheism (one even had pamphlets)....and they did so with no less ardor than the religious zealots bring to their cause'.
The astute reader will see that Hal is basically inferring that these atheists are akin to a religion, even making note of their pamphleteering. Medical doctors and pharmacists hand out pamphlets too, but I digress.
Atheism is merely a rejection or lack of theism, and it's a response to a claim. The deist may cover 'how it began' with a god, but a non-intervening God is effectively the same as 'no god', in practice, just like atheism would be justified to the claim that God simply 'went away for a few billion years but is coming back'.
Naturally, any God who would take the time to prove itself would be thoughtfully considered, but the evidence is just not there and likely won't be coming anytime soon. Dr. Bidlack is employing the fallacy of extremes here, thinking there is some safe middle ground between atheism/theism, which for him is deism. However, I don't consider the position of atheist any more 'extremist' than the position of 'a-Zeusist' or 'a-SantaClausist'. Therefore, there is no more 'zealotry' in rejecting the wild claim of 'God exists' than one would reject the claim that 'Shukulakamaka the invisible gas-god of inner Jupiter exists'. Comparing atheists to zealots is simply misguided, and belies the sensitivity Hal has about his deism.
'And thus a great passion in my life, skepticism, is becoming a more and more difficult path. I find myself more and more drawn to the mission and yet more and more estranged from those who walk with me.'
'It is not without irony to note that the methods of religious extremists pushed moderates away from a particular faith. And within the skeptical movement, those who insist that atheism is the only single correct worldview and that it must be the lens with which all critical issues are viewed, well they pushed me away'.
The mistake Hal makes here is how he mis-characterizes atheism or atheists, in that we hold an absolute position. He commits a strawman fallacy.
A correctly-held skeptical and provisional rejection of an untestable, incoherent claim is by no means any form of extremism, any more than not believing in green-spotted Cephalopods from planet Venus is a form of extremism. When faced with a wild, untested claim, the innocent bystander rejecting the claim is not an extremist but instead, a person employing healthy skepticism. After all, there cannot both 'be a god' and 'not be a god' concurrently. Either there is or there isn't, and thus far, all the evidence lacking for any god claim leaves atheism as not an extreme 'position' but a reasonable default.
Likewise, abolitionists were not extremists in their opposition to slavery any more than those who supported women's rights were 'extremist' in their response to the oppression of women.
Hal Bidlack spoke at TAM 4 in 2006, in support of his deism, interwoven with emotional appeals and even, a sense that he knows his deism isn't rational. This is all well and good, but there's no reason to complain about atheists being 'too critical' of his notably irrational deism....this is what skeptics do! They scrutinize claims....and if one holds a claim which is 'off limits' it becomes little more than special pleading.
Here's an excerpt from the introduction:
'...if you are keeping score, appeal to emotion will be a recurring one for me today. But as we are all friends here, I shall chance it. I suspect that only a very few are able to move through life with unwavering belief systems. I am not one of those people. I am in many things, inconsistent'.
Without going into the whole speech, suffice it to say that Hal's reasons for deism are more appeals to emotion than rationality as he gives empassioned recollections of his wife's battle with cancer and his direct experience with the aftermath of the 911 attacks.
Speaking generally, it's ok to simply define your faith as a compartmentalized view you have about the supernatural without trying to rationalize it or attempting to paint skeptics with the same brush as zealots. Atheists and the religious are not two 'extremes' on a scale other than one is simply rejecting the claim of the rest, exactly in the same way most theists reject every other religious claim they hear.
Attacking the default and reasonable position of atheism as some kind of ruse will only result in more and more intense skeptical review of your own ideas which don't hold water. It's far more honest and direct for the theist to simply admit where he's inconsistent and deal with the compatible issues...in Hal's case, his shared skepticism with those that, 'walk with him' as he puts it.
Of course, one can practice skepticism and be a deist. One can also be a skeptic and be a theist, such as the Christian who may work as a scientific researcher...using his skeptical brain at work, but using a religious part of his compartmentalized brain in church. But, there is a caveat. If one holds certain beliefs 'off-limits' from his skepticism, then at best, that person is simply inconsistent and not as good of a skeptic as he/she could be.
Theists of all types manage to operate microwave ovens, drive cars, solve puzzles, patent inventions and reject some pseudoscience, scams and assorted woo. However, theists by definition accept some supernatural claims as 'Truth®' or they wouldn't be theists. Theists have varying levels of skepticism, but by definition employ 'exceptions' which allows them to maintain the cognitive dissonance that is religion in a modern world. In Dr. Bidlack's case, he may consider himself a good skeptic, but his appeal for exemption with regard to his Deism is nothing less than a fallacy of special pleading.
While some theists may call themselves 'skeptics', they're just not consistent, since by definition a theist who believes in an untestable 'god' hasn't discovered or managed to emotionally accept the reasons a god cannot exist, as defined.
Some people in general will be better skeptics than others and the degree to which skepticism is practiced varies wildly. Likewise, some intellectually brave or honest theists will actually be able to overcome the emotional draw of their religion. I say 'brave' because challenging what you genuinely believe to be the creator of the Universe is no small task. I know, because I did it, and it took a brave and honest intellectual view to do that.
It's sort of like finally standing up to the large and over-developed high-school bully and discovering he's a total wimp or in the case of God, he's not even there. The Wizard of Oz is the same story, and most of us are familiar with that. Suddenly, the bully-problem is gone, but that doesn't change the amount of fear and trepidation which preceded that confrontation. Often, the fear and emotional issues are worse than the problem itself.
My own Christianity was challenged by the first atheist I debated at age 20, and it took about a month for me to fully reject the belief, after a lot of debate, late-night Bible reading and sleepless angst. This was me being skeptical about my *own* views, as difficult as it was, and being consistent. How could I be a good skeptic but call my own irrational beliefs 'off-limits' for emotion or any other reason?
If you're going to call yourself a skeptic and yet knowingly hold an irrational, unfalsifiable belief in a 'God' which you insist is outside the scope of science....and if said God cannot be explained coherently or rationally and is more of an appeal to emotion than logical theory, than you are simply putting your skepticism on hold for this particular idea. In THAT instance, you are not a skeptic (or not an honest or consistent one).
Those who knowingly hold irrational beliefs shouldn't resort to emotional appeals or special pleading. At least, they should expect other skeptics to openly review these vulnerable ideas. Those who somehow think both theism and atheism are 'extremes' fall into the split the difference fallacy, as if the 'Truth' lies between two. Is there a middle ground between the claim of Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the rejection of this claim as true? How about the claim that men should own slaves, and the rejection of this idea based on the notion that humans should be treated equally?
Let's not insult atheists by implying that they're somehow 'militant' (taking up arms) or misrepresent atheism as some 'absolute' position when you hold a belief in a space-pixie due to an appeal to ignorance or emotion. This is a mere distraction, and doesn't weaken atheism (which is simply a reponse to a claim) but instead belies an insecurity in whatever you're trying to protect from scrutiny.
Yes, I admire any skeptical work Hal Bidlack and other theist/deist skeptics might be doing and if he ran for office where I lived, I'd probably be glad to vote for him (since we agree on so much). However those who refuse to apply scrutiny to some of their own ideas are simply not being the best skeptics they could be, and shouldn't complain (or be surprised) when others enthusiastically review their ideas on their behalf.
There are some excellent defenders of church-state separation who believe in a God such as Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Does that make Rev. Lynn and his organization any less effective at defending church-state separation? No. Does that make them good skeptics? Debatable, but it's a different issue. I may disagree with Rev. Lynn about his God-belief, but I highly value the work he's doing to help promote church-state separation as guaranteed in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, if Barry Lynn were to make a claim that atheists are in some sense wrong or 'extreme', his own beliefs would come under intense scrutiny, and he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But, I would just as soon let sleeping dogs lie while he continues his valuable work with Americans United.
Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Sometimes, we find alliances in those who may not be just like us, but they are allies just the same. I for one accept and admire those who strive to be skeptics, even if they're not quite as skeptical as I'd like them to be. Some may feel I am being a bit hard on Hal and others who are allies in this skeptical movement, but my point here is that there are no exceptions. No idea is sacrosanct or exempt from scrutiny....yes, even the ideas of my fellow-allies in the skeptical movement. Believe me, I understand that we need every skeptic willing to help usher-in critical thinking....but we skeptics need to bear in mind that we are never personally exempt.
To be fair, I am sure there are atheists somewhere who don't believe humans landed on the moon, or that believe the tripe Jenny McCarthy spreads about the 'danger' of vaccines. Simply being an atheist doesn't mean one is inherently more skeptical, but calling one's self a 'skeptic' means you shouldn't make exceptions, no matter how uncomfortable it might be. I actually met an atheist once who was homophobic. I can assure you that this isn't common, but he seemed impervious to the scientifically-verified fact that homosexuality is congenital, cannot be 'changed' by mere suppression and exists almost always at a 10% baseline level in human populations and to varying degrees in other animal species as well.
As with anything, people have skeptical lapses, and there is often room for improvement. I applaud those who strive to be skeptical and who value critical-thinking, but none of us are immune from the critical eye of others...it's what keeps the 'critical' in critical thinking, and though it's sometimes painful, it keeps us honest.
Plus, it's something to talk about over lunch. ;)
-dB-
Atheist Angle RSS Feed
2 comments:
*applause*
Awesome post Dan! :)
Thank you Leigh, and as always...thanks for reading! :D
Post a Comment