Some people seem to conflate critical thinking with skepticism. Whilst critical thinking is, obviously, a major part of skepticism, that does not mean that any issue you can apply critical thinking to (ie: same-sex marriage) and come to a specific conclusion (of course it should be legal) is a skeptical issue.

Traditional skepticism consists of critical thinking applied to claims about the nature of reality.

While I support issues such as gay rights and equal opportunity, they do not fall under the umbrella of skepticism.

Unfortunately, identifying as a skeptic does not make one reasonable.

No kidding!

Another very interesting post. I’ve been dropping by here for a while now, and I find that everything you write is really interesting. I just wish you wrote more. I am certainly looking forward to your next post.

Why does skepticism need to be a social justice movement? That involves ideology.

Oh, Laursaurus. You will love my next post. I am a little pissed off because half of it was eaten by the server this morning, but I’m recreating it and it’s right along the lines of what you’re talking about here.

Regarding the rest, I’d like to add a couple of notes:

– I stay away from forums in general. They’re somewhat poisonous, imo.

– TAM is diverse. The audience is filled with great people, but there are some who are just jerks. Unfortunately, identifying as a skeptic does not make one reasonable.

– I can see why you’d think that TAM’s priorities are things like feminism and secularism, especially when you look at the program for some years, but I don’t think that’s accurate. Its priority is skepticism of the paranormal, but secularism is part of that mission (the CFI has been a co-sponsor of TAM) and the importance of issues such as alternative medicine warrant some attention. The Skeptic Society has also been a co-sponsor of TAM and their focus is much broader, encompassing skepticism of mainstream science.

Feminism, however, is not an issue that I believe any of the organizations considers within their scope. The panels about women in science and skepticism serve a different purpose: to discuss effective means of outreach to achieve gender parity among community members. There was also a “feminism” workshop at TAM8 which was a bit of a disaster, imo, but the idea was supposed to be to applying skepticism to feminist issues, not to apply feminist ideology to the skeptic agenda.

The organizers are not perfect, but they do learn from their experiences and I strongly believe that the JREF tries to put together a professional conference whose focus is scientific skepticism. So far, I find it a conference worthy of my support (I have contributed my time and work for the last three years) and one I love to attend. This year’s will be my 6th or 7th (I have actually lost count). I hope that someday you’ll feel comfortable there and enjoy it, too.

And you just sparked something in my head about secularism that probably deserves attention in the form of another blog post. Thank you!

Yes! Thank you!
I love your writings, Barbara. I have started to comment countless times, but the perfectionist monster eats my homework.
What resonates with me is the way skepticism seems hopelessly distorted by the community that has gathered under the banner. Why does skepticism need to be a social justice movement? That involves ideology. Critical-thinking is a such a valuable skill to analyze what is factual. Ideology involves value judgments, like “what is important”. As a female, I cringed when I first visited a particularly controversial blog who’s unabashed mission is promoting Feminism with Skepticism. When did selling skeptics on a pet cause happen? When did stamping out religion while co-opting Judeo-Christian ethics become important? The Movement is a frightening paradox of euphemisms. How does a skeptic square the importance of increasing the ethnic and gender diversity with imposing group-think?
Here’s the thing. I believe in God and I love science. We exist in larger numbers than NECs or atheists. When I reveal my mainstream worldview in a skeptical forum, a deluge of vitriol follows. “Skeptics” never discuss viewpoints, they debate them for the benefit of on-lookers. The JREF may officially not endorse atheism. But should the straight-forward explanation of the rationale be stated, the moderates are viciously pummeled into dropping the issue. After all, they are sympathetic to the plight of atheists.
But I have already taken your sage advise. The fundamentals of scientific skepticism matter the most to me. But other than a mission statement which is really more of a disclaimer, it isn’t the most important to the JREF. TAM has other priorities like Feminism, Secularism (aka stamping out religion), LGBT equality, Progressive politics, and ethnic diversity. More colorful faces confirms the conclusion that racism, sexism, and homophobia only exist because people have a concept of God. When a group of “privileged” atheists asserts this, it doesn’t fly. The church leaders not only look like them, they embrace them with dignity. Not much of that going on in white non-believer communities. If it was truly about scientific skepticism, all would be welcome. Defining people as enemies of science and reason, tends to be unwelcoming.
I appreciate that you really make an effort to keep skepticism on track. I rather enjoy critical thinking. But I am one of those evil theists who feels closer to the Creator (Evolutioner) by examining the His technology.

I’m not sure that “…when you attack all the “-isms” (racism, sexism, etc), skepticism is the tool you use to knock down the claims that people use to support the -isms.” is more clear than other attempts to explain this nuance, but maybe it will resonate with people for which other explanations hasn’t.

And you just sparked something in my head about secularism that probably deserves attention in the form of another blog post. Thank you!