Here's another poster I made. This time, it's a graphic depiction of why it's important to keep state and church separate. I got the dollar graphic from the old Interwebz. :)

The New Atheists: Does Tone Matter?

As an outspoken and somewhat aggressive atheist who finds it effective to sometimes use ridicule to make strong points against often dishonest opponents, I often get the complaint that my 'tone' is objectionable...even from those who are also atheists or skeptics.

Often, we find ourselves in the skeptical community divided about 'tone', where some complain that the 'New Atheists' are too harsh, too polemic, and too sharp with our points to reach the masses. I've heard about this 'tone' argument pointed at Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Vic Stenger, the Rational Response Squad, Massimo Pigliucci, Aron Ra of YouTube fame and many other outspoken non-believers.

But, how harsh is too harsh, and why the focus on TONE over the actual points being made?

My response to that is this: Tone matters, but various tones are needed. Those who complain about tone might think they're just trying to make us 'nicer' in response to some imaginary, honest and sensitive listener with an ear for nuance, while ignoring the fact that many theists aren't actually thinking, but bleating and repeating verse or beliefs, never having reviewed them and not honestly listening to critiques of their ridiculous claims.

In effect, focusing so much on 'tone' makes many atheist arguments less effective, and creates an unnecessary divide between the 'New Atheists' and those who are more passively atheist or who eschew the term 'atheist' altogether but share the non-theist position. The last thing atheists need is senseless subdivision. We need unity in this movement against irrationalism and religiosity now more than ever.

As we know, not everyone learns at the same rate or in the same manner. In matters of mass delusion such as religion, this de-conversion problem isn't merely about a lapse in logic. If this were the case, the person holding delusional beliefs such as 'god' would simply have the illogic of it explained which would instantly result in dismissal of erroneous belief(s), and we'd all talk about something else.

Such is not the case.

First, the mass-delusion of religion is not merely a logical sticking point but a deep-seated emotional issue. This emotional defense comes out of an almost blind defense of tradition, family and familiar ritual, and lives in a compartmentalized part of the religious mind often impervious to logical review. This is why the term 'freethinker' is so important, as a freethinker is someone whose views on religion transcend ritual, authority and tradition, but scrutinize religion openly and 'freely'. Someone who protects his religion in a bubble exempt from logic is by definition not a freethinker.

Alas, religion is not the product of logic, but primary socialization of trusting children, brainwashing and inculcation, societal reinforcement of demonstrably false ideas and a protection of investment and an unwillingless to face the truth despite a discomfiting cognitive dissonance.

Explain to a rational adult that you hold a dear belief that you are, in fact, an elf and you will be met with peals of laughter, derision, outright mockery and endless ridicule. No matter how deeply-held your belief, it'll simply be rejected on all fronts, and with various tones....but all leading to the same end result: denial and rejection. Your claim could be subject to review by scientists who could sequence your DNA, observation that you do not resemble an elf in any fashion, and counter-evidence that you in fact are Homo Sapiens with a specific lineage which can be traced to specific geographic locales.

Does tone matter to the recipient of said ridicule? Sure, and it probably scales with the lack of evidence. The person on the recieving end of this ridicule, and who honestly believes himself to be an elf, would much rather people simply believed him so he could get on with the business of actually being an elf, unopposed and unchallenged, as he believes himself (or she believes herself) to be. The elf-boy knows he cannot prove his claim, so his *only* recourse is to simply attempt to silence his critics and hang out with those who either avoid the subject or accept it without evidence.

The point here is that with enough ridicule, the silly ideas can't survive unless they're proven sufficiently to attract support. Those who practice science and deal with real data don't care about tone....they either verify or falsify their claims. You can bet their harshest critics are often other scientists. It's not about tone, it's about content. Those who complain about tone are simply trying to make criticism more bearable in a vacuum of evidence.

Tell enough people that you are Jesus and the holy and all-powerful son of God and you'll generally be laughed at or deemed crazy (often with very harsh tone), and this is in a culture where most Americans (and much of the world) believe in God.

Why are most Christians so quick to harshly reject the claim from some who might say, 'I am Jesus' or better yet, 'I am God' so harshly, and yet protect other nutty ideas about religion that their fellow believers claim? It's funny how some ridiculous claims are sacrosanct, and yet theists will openly and harshly reject other claims, even in the purview of their belief-system.

Go ahead, name your kid 'God', and see how people react and what kind of tone they use. Name him 'Jesus' and it's ok (as long as it's pronounced 'hay zoos' and the child appears Hispanic). Insist on people calling your kid 'Jee-zus' and you'll be in for a tough road ahead. Why the inconsistency? It's just people with silly beliefs arbitrarily protecting them based on culture and blind-tradition, and yet properly skeptical of claims which lie outside the immediate protection of their established religion.

Why the tonal difference between the treatment of the god-claim and elf-claim?

The God myth is popular in our English-speaking, largely-Christian culture, and people claiming to be Elves isn't. There are enough adults who believe in a God with a son named Jesus that this nutball idea has wide support with more 'converts' being made every day as innocent, trusting children are lied to about how the world works, from well-meaning but delusional parents.

Popular religious memes get un-due protection from scrutiny, are blindly defended by many, there's a built-in rule against doubt or scrutiny and there's public pressure to slander or silence the 'opposition' (whether that's perceived as atheists, sciences such as evolution, secularism in general, etc.). The American government even gets involved, violating the Constitution to promoting certain religions (Christianity) and religion over irreligion, such as the National Day of Prayer tradition. Incidentally, this unconstitutional government-endorsed religious favoritism was roundly defeated in a recent case; The Freedom From Religion Foundaton (FFRF.org) vs. President Obama. The ruling was made by Judge Barbara Crabb in yet another victory for secularism, and ultimately, for all Americans. If there's no freedom from religion then people can hardly expect to have freedom *of* religion, as the forefathers intended and the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees.

As Sam Harris said, (paraphrased), the 'moderates' out there provide comfort and cover for the fundamentalists. There is nobody providing cover for the 'I am an Elf' claim, nor is there cover for any god someone will invent next week. Popularity in effect lends support to a silly idea, but as we know historically, popularity is not a measure of validity. The ideas that the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe were no less wrong when they were popular than they are today.

Why then, with all the evil that comes from religion, are some skeptics so afraid of 'offending' theists with tone? This is exactly what unfounded claims need: skeptical inquiry, harsh and unrelenting review, unmitigated investigation and yes, sometimes ridicule is useful and effective. Some people simply won't respond to a review which is too obtuse, or too indirect, or too 'nice'. We can directly see how crazy some people get when their beliefs remain unchallenged too long, after all, how do people get to believe they are Jesus in the first place? They've clearly held a belief that a God exists, and somehow warped the religion they were taught into something else....a mutant form if you will.

Most children in America and in some other countries are also taught that Santa Claus is 'true', and invariably, they find out that Santa Claus is just a lie at a fairly young age. No matter how gently you put it, kids will generally react badly to this harsh reality...not because they don't understand the illogic of a guy in a red suit traveling around the world in one night or squeezing down chimneys (even where there's no chimney to be found), but because they suddenly *do* understand. The phenomenon we're seeing is an emotional reaction to a sudden realization (often accompanied by tears), a spontaneous change in worldview, a loss of investment, etc.

Adults are no different when confronted with devastating arguments about their god-beliefs, other than the fact that most are less resilient than children finding out that there's no Santa Claus. Instead of bursting into tears (which can sometimes happen), they act out in other ways...often harnessing their political, manipulative or even physical power to silence or distract the messenger from saying something that offends them, and threatens their investment in the dangerous mind-virus we call religion.

Once someone reaches adulthood, it can be very difficult to deprogram that person and bring them back to reality. Adults become set in their ways, are not as used to being challenged, and often have learned bad habits with regard to critical-thinking or lack critical-thinking skills. Adults who believe in fairy tales, while they may be able to operate a computer or solve math problems, often have a sense of investment in their bad ideas, and instead of thinking logically, often resort to a blind defense of home and hearth rather than thinking they were wrong all those years. Facing false beliefs late in life takes a unique combination of courage and intellectual honesty. Children will cry and then get over Santa Claus...but adults can linger in a quagmire of silly beliefs for years before they're able to shake certain delusions.

That said, the elf story is true. In high-school, some poor kid who had been clearly deluded by his parents gave an empassioned oral report about the fact that he was an Elf. At the end of the report the class erupted in peals of laughter....and at the time, I was a good Christian boy who believed that an all-powerful space-pixie sent himself down in the form of his own son to die for my sins, which is just as laughable.

So yes, tone matters, but not for the reasons often claimed. Tone matters because different 'tones' are effective for different people.

If your style of skeptical review is to be gentle, nice and not create too much of a stir but instead gently plant seeds, so be it. You will get through to earnest truth-seekers, but some will intimate you, talk over you, lead you through logical ruses (if you let them) and play all kinds of intellectually dishonest tricks. You will get through to some, but be completely ineffective with others.

Likewise, the world needs people who charge in head-on, tackle ideas without any mitigating softness and slay delusion wherever they find it. The hard-charging new atheist might turn off the delicate believers who might be swayed with a gentle demeanor, but they will often get through to those who are sufficiently embarrassed into re-thinking their position, because few people enjoy looking silly or stupid in public. It's the same motivation which causes people to double-check their zippers when leaving a restroom or make sure they don't have toilet paper stuck to the bottom of their shoes. People go to great lengths to avoid ridicule, and crazy ideas about super-pixies are not in any sense exempt.

This is why I usually find it pointless to argue with raving fundies in private. I've found their arguments are often way more ridiculous when they think nobody's looking...but debate them in public where you can point out every dishonest ruse, every disingenuous strawman and every ignored point and you will find the Fundy either runs for the hills or backs down, because they will eventually look stupid or dishonest if you challenge every unfounded assertion they try to build upon. This seems harsh, but remember, people hate feeling\looking stupid, even when it's a result of their own dishonesty (or stupidity). If you point out the errors in someone's argument often enough (and in front of an audience), the dishonest person holding the clearly disproven views should eventually back down, or at least lose credibility.

The no-nonsense, aggressive (new atheist) approach works wonders for these belligerent and aggressive theists, who think that putting atheists on the defensive is a good tactic to 'defend' theism. Those refuting religious claims need a a certain amount of intestinal fortitude to deal not only with someone who believes irrational ideas, but who uses dishonest techniques or might simply talk over you or make unfounded assertions on top of assertions, if not challenged early and often when these mistakes are made.

Remember, just being an atheist is already offensive to most theists, and according to most Bibles, is reason enough for you to land in someone's Hell. You may as well speak your mind. I recommend avoiding Ad-Hominem (character attacks), but be relentless in your intellectual review of any idea you find objectionable. Don't fall for ruses or distractions, don't let people talk over or silence you, and don't let them run away until you've made your closing statement.

Arguing with theists can be comical sometimes....as the closer you get to driving home a devastating point, the more they wriggle away. It's also comical that some theists complain about the New Atheists not being 'nice' while their very holy books have slandered non-believers for thousands of years....the Koran even recommends that the 'Infidel' (non-believer), be slayed wherever they are found. Arguing against theists isn't just about ideas, in a sense it's about divesting people of dangerous mind-viruses which cause real harm in the world in often unforseeable ways.

It's important to vehemently and forcefully resist this nonsense, because people are going to keep believing crazy stuff until there's a critical mass of people who don't believe it and are out of the closet about it. Only then will some of these ideas fall out of favor, but it takes effort. The reason we New Atheists seem so loud and strident, is because generally, we're the ones with the gumption to actually speak loudly against the hordes of believers who have been under-opposed for too long. It's not for the faint-of-heart. As more people speak up, a wider variety of voices will be heard, and perhaps the debate itself will dull as religion ceases to be so important (and dangerous) a force to reckon with.

Historically, many of us with unpopular ideas have often been silenced, often on pain of oppression, injury or death. I am sure many more would love to silence us again, but those days are long gone (at least in most of the world). Enjoy the various tonalities in this symphony we call the skeptical movement....the fact that we're being heard is something to celebrate, not argue about.

dB

Hal Bidlack: Can a deist (or theist) be a (good) skeptic?

I'm a fan of podcasts, especially podcasts relating to skepticism and atheism.

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-