As I noted in my last post, the study I’ll be discussing was grossly misreported, starting with its press release. Since the study itself appears to be behind a pay wall for most people, I’ll describe as much detail as I can in a blog post as I discuss the study’s validity and findings of the study, published in the Journal of Social Psychological and Personality Science and titled “My Brother’s Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals”.

But for those who are not at all interested in the research methods or a breakdown of why I rate the quality of the study the way I do, I will give you the the bottom line so you can skip the rest or only read the sections that interest you (I’ve used headings to make it easier).

Summary

I think that the findings will hold up to replication, despite some issues I have with the way they did a few things. Overall, the research quality is quite high.

The groups they compared did not include atheists, agnostics, believers, non-believers, highly religious, or any other label that you can throw at it. In the studies they used raw religiosity scores and made some comparisons of “higher” and “lower” using values from the distribution. In a sense, the compared those who scored in the lower half of the sample to those who scored in the upper half.

They found:

• Differences in prosocial behavior cannot be dismissed as due to political affiliation, socio-economic status, or other factors often held up as responsible.
• Religiosity is correlated with trait compassion; the more religious, the more compassionate.
• Trait compassion is related to prosocial behavior in general. This relationship is stronger in the less religious than in the more religious. This does not mean that the less religious are more compassionate (see number 1) or that the less religious are more prosocial. It just means that compassion is a bigger factor in prosocial behavior in the less religious.
• The findings of the first study can be interpreted one way that isn’t discussed in the paper: when the relationship between compassion and religiosity is accounted for, the more religious are not more prosocial than the less religious.
• The findings in the second study, which involved inducing feelings of compassion, were similar for generosity, except that the more religious were more prosocial even after accounting for compassion.
• The findings of the second study also included a different pattern when the prosocial behavior was giving to charity. Compassion induced more giving, but the effect was weak and did not differ much across religiosity. Religiosity had a significant affect on charity. This can be explained by the guidelines provided by many churches for how much of one’s salary one should give.
• In the third study, in which state compassion (how compassionate the individual felt at that time) was measured and the prosocial behavior measure involved real-world cash, religiosity was not related to either compassion or prosocial behavior.
• In the third study, state compassion was positively correlated with prosocial behavior, but the effect was greater in the less religious than in the more religious.

What the findings as a whole say to me, and what I believe the press report tried, but failed, to express, at least with convincing support: We do not need religion to be prosocial. We need compassion.

This is great news for secularists.

However, it doesn’t say anything negative about religion or the religious, nor does it provide anything that should make atheists feel superior. It just shows that one can be good without God; that motivations can come from other sources.

Now on to the details…

NOTE: to keep this as short as possible, I’ve included a lot of links to terms and demonstrations. Where I describe problems in more detail I still water-down quite a bit. I will do my best to make it understandable without rambling on and on, but keep in mind that it takes many years to learn enough about research design and statistics to understand why some of these are problematic. Furthermore, not all researchers will agree on the consequences of some of these problems. I am still learning this stuff myself (probably always will be learning).

The Study (description)

The article reports three studies, each related to the relationship between compassion and prosocial behavior in less-religious individuals. I have created graphs using the information in the paper, but in some cases I did not have exact numbers, so while the relationships are visually accurate, there are only values where I could use exact numbers.

Theoretical Foundation

The introduction discusses research which documents that religiosity is associated with prosocial behavior. Specifically, religious people give more and volunteer more than nonreligious people, over and above what they give to and do for religious organizations. The researchers note that the nonreligious do give; when we compare groups, we do so using averages. However, it may be that the motivations for prosocial behavior vary in a way that interacts with religiosity. In other words, the more religious among us may be motivated to prosocial behavior by one set of factors and the less motivated by another.

The researchers hypothesized that compassion is a more influential factor in prosocial behavior for the less religious than for the more religious among us.

Study 1

The first study examined the relationships among religiosity and traits of compassion and prosocial tendencies. What this basically means is that situational factors were not involved; traits are a matter of personality or attitude. For example, “trait anxiety” refers to how anxious a person is in general, while “state anxiety” refers to how anxious that same individual feels in a given situation.

This study involved analyzing data from a 2004 “survey”. I put that term in quotes because it usually refers to a set of questions that do not measure more than what is apparent at face value. Established measures of latent variables (variables which cannot be measured directly such as feelings and attitudes) are usually called an “inventory” or “scale” and we refer to them loosely as “measures”. In this case, the survey involved such measures and I want to make that clear.

The sample was comprised of 1337 participants and covariates (variables other than those of interest which could explain differences among the groups) of gender, political orientation, and education were included in the analysis. The variables of interest were religiosity, compassion, and prosocial behavior. Religious identity (identification with a specific religion or no religion) was also considered.

Results

Correlations

• Covariates had little impact on the results.
• Trait compassion was positively correlated with religiosity* and prosocial behavior. On average, the more compassionate the individual, the more religious they were and the more the more prosocial they were.
• The relationship between religiosity and prosocial behavior was marginally significant (statistically).

Hypothesis Test (See Figure 1)

Figure 1: Study 1 results. "Higher" and "lower" are defined here as 1 SD from the mean.

• A regression analysis revealed an interaction of religiosity and compassion on prosocial behavior. What this means: The effect of compassion on prosocial behavior differed among levels of religiosity.
• More specifically, the level of trait compassion affected prosocial behavior less as religiosity increased.
• There was also a main effect of compassion, but that was apparent in the correlational analysis.
• There was no main effect of religiosity on prosocial behavior. This is interesting, because they found a marginally significant correlation, but it does not mean the there are no difference in prosocial behavior. I would interpret these findings, when put together, as suggestive of little or no difference between the more religious and the less religious in prosocial behavior over and above the differences accounted for by compassion.

The authors discuss the findings a little differently, though, focusing on the differences in the way that compassion affected prosocial behavior (the interaction in the first hypothesis test result) and ignoring the way that the effect of religiosity disappeared when compassion was entered into the equation. It seems more interesting to me to treat compassion as the moderator. It also makes more sense in the end.

Study 2

This study was experimental in that the researchers manipulated state compassion. In other words, they induced feelings of compassion in half of the participants and compared the amount of prosocial behavior those participants engaged in to the amount of such behavior in a control condition.

The sample included 101 participants and the study was conducted online, so the age range was exceptional (from 18 to 68 years). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions and each watched a short video under the guise that there would be a test of memory afterward.  The videos were established manipulations of feelings of compassion and neutral emotion (i.e., other researchers tested their effectiveness). Following the video, participants completed two tasks which are well-established measures of prosocial behavior commonly used in such research.

Results

• Again, covariates had little impact on the results.

Hypothesis Tests (See Figure 2)

Figure 3: Results of Study 3. Values are relative.

There were two tests since the participants completed to different prosocial tasks, one involving generosity and the other involving charity.

For the generosity task:

• This time there were a main effects of both religiosity and compassion on prosocial behavior. The more religious, the more prosocial. Those who watched the compassion-inducing video were the more prosocial on average than those who watched the neutral video.
• The interaction appeared again in the manner as in Study 1.

For the charity task:

• There were main effects of both religiosity and compassion on prosocial behavior.
• There was no interaction.

This is where they screw up, in my opinion.

The pattern of the moderation was in the predicted direction but failed to reach statistical significance.

This is not an acceptable statement unless the findings are marginal. This was not. The p-value was .408. This is not even close to meaningful. Still, they went ahead with the analysis of the interaction and reported an effect of compassion on charity for the less religious participants and no effect for the more religious.  The problem is that post-hoc analysis like this assumes that a significant interaction was observed. Their tests inflated alpha (the probability of a Type I Error) and can only mislead. They stated that they had found “partial support” for their hypothesis, but they did not in this case.

The relationships in the generosity task are very clear when we look at a Figure 2. The interaction is the interesting finding. Compassion had little effect on the more religious, but a very large effect on the less religious, who gave practically nothing when compassion was not induced. There is no analysis to tell us if the less religious surpassed the religious by a statistically significant amount when compassion was induced, but they were clearly out done by the more religious when not made to feel compassion.

The charity task showed no such interaction and the authors did not include a graph of this effect that I could recreate, nor did they provide the information to make one.

Study 3

For this study, the sample of 120 completed a state compassion inventory (a measure of their feelings of general compassion at the moment) and a series of “economic tasks designed to measure their generosity, trust, trustworthiness, and motivation to reward others’ generosity.” What differed in this study, however, was that the ‘points’ they earned in these tasks could be exchanged for cash at the end of the study. Participants did not know how much cash, but they knew that the more points they earned, the more cash they would receive.

Results

Hypothesis Tests (See Figure 3)

The findings of this study were very different from the other two.

• State compassion was not related to religiosity.
• Religiosity was not related to prosocial behavior.
• There was an interaction of religiosity and compassion on prosocial behavior. The amount of compassion felt had more of an effect on the behavior the less religious than it did on the more religious.

The graph of these findings, a reproduction of their graph since they did not provide information to create one that would make more sense (to me anyway), is a bit misleading. The values are z-scores, so they are relative to one another and not actual values. What is interesting, though is how little the prosocial score varied in the more religious group and how that line barely dips below the mean value (represented by 0).

There is also a problem with the press release in that it makes the claim that the high state compassion/less religious group out-performed the others. There is no statistical analysis comparing the groups in that way, so this is a misstatement. We do not know if less religious individuals are more generous than more religious when motivated to act prosocially. We just know that they are more generous when motivated by compassion than when compassion is low.

The Study Overall

As I noted, my opinion of the studies as a whole is relatively high, but I do have some major criticisms. Some of the language makes me cringe (e.g., results are the product of statistical tests, so “We tested our results”…), but I have seen more and more of this as scientific reports in general have grown sloppier.  Study design and method is much more important, as is the quality of the reporting beyond language.

The authors also throw around the term “robust”, claiming in the first study that the relationship between compassion and prosocial behavior is “particularly robust” for less religious individuals. That term refers to findings which are “sturdy” and will stand up when some supports are removed – effects which appear to hold up in different situations. Since this was one analysis of one data set, that term just doesn’t work. It does not fit in any of their uses of it.

In fact, they err in Study 2 by saying that the effect was “attenuated” for the more religious. That term is relative; attenuated compared to what? The effect was not “robust” in one condition and “attenuated” in another; they can only be compared to each other. The effect was greater in the less religious than the more religious.

Missing Information

There are a number of bits of information which are considered to be, at minimum, required for a good research report. A general rule of thumb for methods and results sections is to include enough (without being redundant) information to allow other researchers to replicate (in a strict sense) the study and to confirm that the statistical findings are properly interpreted.

I am not sure that this article meets that criterion. The methods are pretty well fleshed out and the paper is full of statistics, but some descriptive statistics are missing that I would have liked to have seen (e.g., means reported overall for measures, but not by group) and there was not enough of the right information to recreate them.

Grouping the Data and Errors of Generalization

One overall criticism which warrants discussion is in the grouping of data. There are some problems with this and they are related. The sensitivity of the religiosity measure is one problem that, by itself, is not a big target for criticism. Combined with the second problem of grouping participants, though, it becomes more serious.

The practice of comparing groups of people based on a variable which is distributed on a spectrum is a common one. The question the researcher wants to answer is important in deciding whether to group and, in this case, I do not disagree with that choice, but I question how they grouped and how it was communicated. If the data are clustered (the distribution is multi-modal), grouping is simplified, but if the data are distributed more loosely, it can be tricky and dangerous.

First, the researcher loses information, therefore they lose sensitivity and usually lose power. The sensitivity problem is relevant in the first study, but mostly because it makes the findings difficult to interpret.

Second, if the way that the grouping is communicated is not consistent and clear, it is likely to be misinterpreted, compounding any existing problems with the method. I discussed this problem in my last post. Most of the reports referred to the groups compared as “highly religious” verses “atheists and agnostics” or something like that. However, where are all of the people in the middle (i.e., most likely the bulk of the sample)?  Within each group there was variation in religiosity and comparisons are made using averages. Generalizing only works when the samples are representative of the population of interest and this applies in either direction of the generalization (i.e., specific to mixed or mixed to specific).

Third, researchers must decide where to draw the lines between high and low (and anything in between). Since the majority of variables in psychology are normal distributed (therefore symmetrical), the lines are usually drawn using rankings of sample values and the most common way to split a sample in half is to put all values above the median into “higher” and those below into “lower” (called a “median split”). However, ease is not a good reason to use this technique.   Here is an interesting demonstration of the dangers of dichotomizing normally-distributed variables.

But… religiosity is not usually distributed normally; it’s usually skewed. Skew means that it’s not symmetrical, so a median-split would make even less sense.

In this case, it seems that the authors tried to have the best of both worlds by treating religiosity as a continuous variable, but doing post-hoc analysis on it, discussing it, and graphing it as if it were dichotomous, choosing values which were one standard deviation from the mean in both directions as the central tendencies of each group. The biggest problem with this is the assumption of normality. If the variable is not normally-distributed (and I suspect that it is not), this grouping is a bit tough to swallow.

When this problem is mixed with a limited range as it is in the first study (the religiosity scale only had four points), it’s a problem. The four possible values were 1 = no religion, 2 = not very strong (religious identity), 3 = somewhat strong, and 4 = strong. Since the mean was 2.99, the bulk of the sample were fairly religious. one standard deviation (1.03) below the mean is not exactly in non-believerland and one above is off the scale (literally). It is just very difficult to see where “higher” leaves off and “lower” takes over.

Although the range is adequate in the other two studies, the problem of discussing groups which do not actually exist and have fuzzy definitions remains. In my opinion that is one of the reasons it was so misreported.

But, overall, the research is of a relatively high quality and interesting. I would like to see more variation in the prosocial tasks, given that the outcome of the charity task was so different from the tasks of generosity.

It seems that the less religious are at least as generous as the more religious, but their reasons for acting prosocially differ. I would like to see the day when, as a group, we are generous and prosocial consistently, without the need to be provoked and without needing to feel an emotional connection to the receiver.

Saslow, L., Willer, R., Feinberg, M., Piff, P., Clark, K., Keltner, D., & Saturn, S. (2012). My Brother’s Keeper? Compassion Predicts Generosity More Among Less Religious Individuals Social Psychological and Personality Science DOI: 10.1177/1948550612444137

Related posts:

1. Science and Spin Are Very Bad Bedfellows
2. There is No Debate Over Evolution
3. Is that a fallacy in your pocket or can you cite some sources? A response to Women and Feminism at TAM8

Arguments over scope and the conflation of atheism and skepticism have reached a fever pitch, as have arguments over tone. I will talk about some of this, but I will not attempt to explain all of the issues in any detail because everything that needs to be said has been said here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here… Well, you get the picture. In fact, if you want to argue the definition of skepticism or Skepticism* in the comments of this post, don’t bother. Instead, read what I wrote about it last year, which I would simply repeat in answer…

…I suggest is this: Skepticism*, as a movement, is not hindered so much by the conflation of atheism and skepticism, the ridicule of believers, or attempts to promote values-based ideology as it is hindered by the blatant ignorance, arrogance, and irrationality displayed when those acts are committed.

In a field dedicated to reducing ignorance and irrationality, a field in which arrogance is toxic, I find this kind of behavior offensive. It is time that we reclaim Skepticism and restore its credibility and integrity.

If one of the major goals of Skepticism is to educate, shouldn’t we all understand the material?

I am angry. I am angry and a little fearful for our future. We live in dangerous times and the work of Skepticism is serious. The work is hard. It requires patience, discipline, empathy, and knowledge.

I am angry because an influx of people who have stumbled upon or been recruited to the work of Skepticism are making it much more difficult. We’re moving backwards. This is happening, in part, because some of these rookies insist that their understanding of that work is as good or better than the understanding of people who have studied and worked in the field for years. Many have little or no education in the basics of science or the scientific process. Some claim to follow the teachings of people whose works they have never read. Some believe that the ‘old guard’ have more to learn from them than the other way around. These people voice their opinions on blogs and in talks, discussing topics about which they consider themselves competent after reading a couple of blog posts, listening to a podcast, considering their own limited experiences, or MAYBE reading a book or two on the topic.

What’s worse, they argue about details with little or no understanding of even the big picture. They believe that their understanding is complete and, therefore, requires no study, no thought beyond the surface features, and certainly not time or mentoring.

This is anti intellectualism in a field which promotes intellect and deep thought.

The problem has bothered me for some time and, in fact, ignorance of one’s own incompetence is something that bothered me in my classroom so much that I studied its relationship to academic entitlement, narcissism, external attributions for achievements, and study strategies. What we learned is that narcissism, entitlement, and shallow study strategies are strongly correlated with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is the phenomenon that the least competent people overestimate their competence the most as part of a self-serving bias. As relative competence increases, overestimations decrease, until the 75th to 95th percentile (depending on the domain), when estimates are fairly accurate. This is particularly problematic in an academic setting because the less students understand a concept, the more likely they are to believe that they understand it, the less likely they are to make changes to ensure that they learn it, and the more likely they will be to feel entitled to a high grade for their poor work.

Skeptical activism is not unlike academics.  Incompetence feeds on itself in this effect. The more an individual overestimates their competence, the more entitled they believe they are to an uncritical audience to which they can voice their opinions. What’s more, the more confident a blogger appears, the more their audience will reinforce their views (because they convince the audience that they know; the same thing occurs with eye witness testimony), although this is somewhat limited to situations in which the view is shallow enough to for the audience to understand, a perfect enhancement to the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

But high confidence is not an indication of actual understanding, nor is the number of supportive cheers of agreement from their followers.

The rest of this post will focus on one example of this, but there have been countless. This particular example is an especially egregious one, since she attacked both a friend for whom I have a great deal of respect and the field I defend daily. It was back-breaking straw for me.

When Amanda Marcotte whined that Daniel Loxton doesn’t want us to talk about religion, she built a now very familiar straw man and dressed him with inappropriate comparisons and other ignorant rambles. She appears to be upset because she somehow thinks that the usurping of a movement in motion, one which is founded on scientific principles, for the promotion of her personal political and religious ideology, should go unchallenged.

Amanda does not appear to understand what skepticism actually is or what science involves, yet she’s thrown her hat in, anyway. Perhaps she is insulted that somebody tried to tell her, I really don’t know, but I do know that the confidence with which she writes about the issues is unwarranted, a fact which is clearly demonstrated by the content of her post.

Amanda wrote,

“Look: atheism is the result of applying critical thinking and demands for evidence to the god hypothesis. It’s not any different than non-belief in all sorts of supernatural claims, such as ESP and ghosts. All of the weaseling around that is intellectually dishonest. It’s not about critical thinking, but about politics and frankly, not taking on religion because religion is seen as too powerful. “

Wrong.

What is intellectually dishonest is arguing about something you do not fully understand against people who are experts in the field. What is intellectually dishonest is advancing an uneducated opinion because the educated one does not help you achieve your own goals.

Her first two sentences demonstrate the problem with this entire post and most of the comments on it: ignorance. The rest of the paragraph is bullshit that Amanda made up. Nobody is ‘backing down’ and there is no concern that “religion is seen as too powerful”. This is not about politics. It is about scientific integrity.  This point has been made again and again, but ignored by people like  Amanda. Perhaps they ignore it because they do not understand it, or maybe they ignore it because it doesn’t help them, but the reasons don’t matter. Ignoring it won’t make it go away.

Science is the pursuit of truth. Truth is not value. Desires are not facts. Facts are not morals.

Scientific integrity requires adherence to scientific principles. Likewise, scientific skepticism relies on scientific integrity. Otherwise, we are just a bunch of people with opinions.

… Loxton decided to shit all over the work of people looking at improving gender, sexual oriention, class, and race diversity in the movement by complaining that the panel at The Amazing Meeting dedicated to this didn’t have any fucking Christians on it.

Again, she’s just making stuff up. Daniel noted that the diversity of the panel did not reflect the diversity of the audience in one important aspect. Framing this as “complaining that there were no Christians” is dishonest and the implication that Daniel does not care about issues of gender, class, and race is simply unfounded and abhorrent. Anyone who actually knows Daniel understands just how stupid that accusation is.

He firmly believes that the god hypothesis should be off-limits for skeptics, and that there should be a bright line between atheism and skepticism. This is ridiculous. “God” is a supernatural claim just like fairies and ghosts.

This statement, once again, not only demonstrates gross ignorance and shallow thinking, but the fact that she’s written an entire blog post questioning the knowledge of a professional skeptic on very basic definitions of the field without first educating herself is offensive and disrespectful. Had she even tried to understand the issues, a task which takes time and energy, she might have learned enough to at least recognize that she has a lot more to learn.

But I am clearly expecting too much, because Amanda thinks that “I don’t get it” equates to “It must not be true” as demonstrated by this parroting of Skeptical sound bites and bullet points, mostly taken out of context or misused (bold mine):

The excuse from “traditional” skeptics for making an exception for religion is that the god hypothesis is an untestable claim, and they’re only interested in testable claims. But as this fairy example shows, that’s not really true. There are plenty of things skeptics are skeptical about because of the preponderance-of-evidence standard. We don’t believe in ESP or ghosts or fairies because no one has ever produced solid evidence in favor of these things existing, and we combine that with an assumption that these things are highly unlikely and so the burden is on the people making the claims to prove them. I don’t see how god is any different.

… Yes, it’s true that you can’t test whether or not there is a god somewhere that simply refuses to show himself, but that’s also true of fairies, people with ESP, and ghosts. And yet it’s considered a good use of skeptical time to point out the weakness of the ghost/ESP argument. So why not god?”

She doesn’t ‘see it’, so it doesn’t exist. I hate to add to the sound bites when what is needed here is serious coursework, but there are some basic concepts that could help Amanda “see how” these things are different, starting with breaking down some of her giant straw man. Here are a few basic points that Amanda should have known before she wrote this post:

• Science is empirical, therefore scientific skepticism is empirical. This is more important than testability, although it is related. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: The concept of testability is watered down somewhat in my posts and comments because it is complicated. For a good discussion of these issues, I recommend Carl Sagan’s Demon-Haunted World.

• Skeptics do not “make exceptions” for religion. The fact that “God exists” is not an empirically testable hypothesis is not the fault of skeptics or Skepticism. It is the nature of the hypothesis. Science and skepticism have nothing to say about any hypothesis which can never be tested empirically.

• Skepticism is not a set of beliefs or conclusions. This is important. “We don’t believe in ESP or ghosts or fairies” is not something that a good skeptic would say and the ‘we’ part is presumptuous. I certainly do not want someone like Amanda Marcotte speaking for me if this what she thinks skepticism is.

• What any Skeptic believes is irrelevant. Personal knowledge is derived in whatever way the individual chooses to derive it. Science and skepticism deal with shared knowledge. Shared knowledge requires empirical evidence.

• The reason that we can easily discount ESP in most cases is because it is usually easily tested empirically.

• Requiring empirical testability is not “giving religion a pass”. It is holding true to the scientific process, which is designed specifically to ensure that our human biases and personal values do not affect our ability to distinguish what is true from what is not true. Religion’s most basic claims usually involve an omniscient and omnipotent being, making them largely untestable. This is not at all true of ESP, ghosts, or other traditional topics in skepticism. More on that below.

• A good skeptic would never state that there are no ghosts. A good skeptic would investigate specific claims of hauntings, searching for natural phenomenon which would explain the evidence. A good skeptic would not say there is no such thing as extrasensory perception. A good skeptic would say that we have no evidence to support precognition, telekinesis, etc.

• Skepticism is not about pointing out the weaknesses of arguments. It is about evaluating the evidence. These are not even close to being the same. When a self-proclaimed psychic moves the bar and says, “If it failed the test, then the forces that give me these powers do not want to be seen,” they make their claim untestable. Skeptics then have nothing to say in response. However, skeptics can provide natural explanations for phenomena (e.g., reveal that Peter Popoff was being fed information via an ear piece) which are much more parsimonious than supernatural explanations. This is also what we do with religious claims. If someone claims that God created man as he is today, we can point to the evidence which support the theory of evolution. If they claim that God created the universe, we can point to the evidence for the Big Bang. If they claim that God created the universe and man by making these natural processes possible, well then, we cannot refute that.

But Amanda would like to cast out Pamela Gay because Pamela believes in a personal God. Never mind the fact that she has never tried to sell that view to others, that she never claimed to support it with evidence, or that she is a very competent and knowledgeable Skeptic, scientist, science educator, and science communicator. Nevermind that Pamela Gay is a valued member of the Skeptical community who has done more to educate and excite young minds about science than all but a few others. [NOTE: minor edit for clarity, 08/07/11 9:50am]

Pamela Gay is not being irrational. Amanda Marcotte is.

Marcotte’s diet example is another case of irrelevant comparison. She states, sarcastically, that people are also touchy about their diet and so expressing skepticism about food trends is probably bad idea, too. This is clearly a straw man. We can demonstrate the effects of gluten empirically, so it is a poor comparison, too. Nobody is saying that people should not express skepticism about the existence of a God. What we are saying is that we cannot demonstrate empirically that God does not exist, therefore, if that is your conclusion, you cannot share that conclusion with others. The difference between personal knowledge and shared knowledge is not trivial.

Making others comfortable is not the issue, either, although making people uncomfortable out of arrogance and ignorance is certainly a part of the issue. I would like to point out that Amanda’s double-standard is pretty obvious in that paragraph. Apparently, the needs that matter are the needs of those she thinks deserve our attention and that’s it. But while we’re on the subject, it doesn’t matter if you are promoting skepticism, atheism, or your favorite restaurant. Being an asshole is being an asshole. The reason that DBAD matters to the rest of us is that when a dick represents Skepticism, they make our jobs more difficult.

The issue of scope is more complicated than the atheism/skepticism debate. The only reason that religion is given special consideration in the discussions of scope is that there are more people conflating atheism with skepticism than ever before. There are more people acting like superior assholes than ever before. People who could be helped by skeptical outreach as well as people who contribute a great deal to the movement (people like Hal Bidlack, a brilliant, scholarly, honorable man with years of service to the community) have been run off by the relentless arrogance of people like those I have discussed in this series of posts. The ignorant, the arrogant, and the irrational (I’m picturing monkeys of the ‘no evil’ variety, but with interesting facial expressions).

And this problem is growing.

Most of the comments on Amanda’s post demonstrate a frenzied groupthink that will further convince her that she’s on the right track. Comment number 41 describes this problem (among others) quite well: “One cool thing about having a political blog which is allegedly powered by skepticism is that people will be much more tolerant of logical fallacies.”

Some of the most fallacious comments:

…There’s nothing worse than an agnostic who thinks he’s more logical and skeptical than an openly religious person. Whether you’re an agnostic or a believer you’re engaging in special pleading on the god question, subjecting it to a different standard than any other question of existence, and you are not a skeptic nor are you logical.

“Special pleading” is a straw man that is repeated often. But it is just that: a straw man.

what the hell is skepticism for if not doing away with false beliefs?

More ignorance. There is no such thing as a ‘false belief’. Beliefs are simply what you hold to be true. Nobody actually knows for certain what is true. Skepticism is about evaluating evidence, period.

H0: There is no god. H1: There is a god. There is a serious shortage of evidence for H1, therefore we must accept the null hypothesis.

Introductory statistics cannot address the question of whether or not God exists.

If there’s a lack of humanpower and ressources to do everything, the question skeptics organizations should ask themselves is not why they should get involved in the more political aspects of skepticism, but why they should still waste ressources on the trivial, non-political aspects like Bigfoot/UFO/ghost/cryptozoology debunkings and such.

Wow. This is very disturbing, and I’m not just talking about the spelling or misuse of words like “aspects”. Apparently many commenters don’t watch television or get out of the house much. The number of shows devoted to ghost hunting alone is staggering. Then there are the shows about psychics of all ages, animal mind readers, monster hunting, etc. These shows are appearing on channels once devoted to science, for FSM’s sake. As for why we don’t get involved in politics, read this.

And anyone who is interested in the bigger picture – the picture concerned about meeting the goals of the movement – should read Comment number 75 on Amanda’s post.

The parroting that atheism is the result of applied skepticism that is so prevalent in the comments and stated in Amanda’s post is anti-skeptical. It demonstrates a failure to understand the fundamental process of skepticism and the empirical nature of science and scientific skepticism. The definitions of science and scientific skepticism were arrived at through centuries of study, collaboration, contemplation, and discussion. They are not negotiable, at least not without agreement from a vast majority of scientists.  If you cannot accept these definitions as they are, you have three choices:

1. Publish your opinions in peer-reviewed journals and hope that philosophers and scientists agree with you.
2. Keep arguing about it with Skeptics and impede our progress.
3. Go do something else.

*”Big-S Skepticism” refers to the work of the skepticism movement in promoting the practice of skepticism.

Related posts:

1. Take Back Skepticism, Part I: The Elephant in the Room
2. Take Back Skepticism, Part II: The Overkill Window
3. There is No Debate Over Evolution

…I suggest is this: Skepticism, as a movement, is not hindered so much by the conflation of atheism and skepticism, the ridicule of believers, or attempts to promote values-based ideology as it is hindered by the blatant ignorance, arrogance, and irrationality displayed when those acts are committed.

In a field dedicated to reducing ignorance and irrationality, a field in which arrogance is toxic, I find this kind of behavior offensive. It is time that we reclaim Skepticism and restore its credibility and integrity.

And

When I can’t tell the ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad guys’, there are no good guys.

At the World Atheist Convention, there was a panel called Communicating Atheism. Video from this panel was posted to YouTube. The comments were almost as disturbing as the video, with Rebecca Watson on the receiving end of all manner of misogyny (and my definition of this is much narrower than hers) and the others being cheered on without thought to the contradictions in their statements. The most interesting part about this is that the most rational person on the panel, and the one to receive the least support from internet commenters, was the one most closely associated with skeptical movement, Rebecca Watson. Next was Richard Dawkins, who is also associated with Skepticism*, although less so than he is with atheism. The least rational were the other two panel members – people I had never heard of until I saw this video. All made reasoning errors of some kind.

The panel was about communicating atheism, however, Rebecca chose not to talk about that. Instead she talked about sexism in the atheist movement. It would not be until later that I would discover just how badly this needed to be discussed. I will remind you at this point that I am usually somewhat critical of Rebecca and that this is the very appearance which sparked elevatorgate. Since I have already chimed in on that, it should be no surprise that I have little negative to say here and I will just leave it at that.

The last person to talk (but more rational than the other two) was Richard Dawkins. He made a statement that I appreciate: he specifically stated that he does not advocate ridiculing believers, but rather ridiculing beliefs. I am not generally against ridiculing beliefs myself, however I believe that goals and context are vital in determining if such ridicule is appropriate. But then he really stepped in it. Dawkins is a highly intelligent and relatively rational person, yet he used weasel words. What exactly is this consciousness-raising that he keeps talking about? He did not define it, but suggested that it was akin to enlightenment. These weasel words were the cornerstone of his statement. Flimsy, Dawkins. Really flimsy.

What’s more, Dawkins began his statement with this:

Last year at the TAM conference, Phil Plait got a lot of applause for a talk about how to communicate atheism… uh, and he began by taking a vote of people who used to be religious and were now atheists and he got a great show of hands and then he said, ‘How many of you changed your mind as a result of being called an idiotic retard?’”

That’s not at all how I remember it.

So, let’s see what Phil really said. After all, the video is freely available on the internet and there is even a partial transcript which includes that opening:

Let me ask you a question: how many of you here today used to believe in something — used to, past tense — whether it was flying saucers, psychic powers, religion, anything like that? You can raise your hand if you want to. [lots of hands go up] Not everyone is born a skeptic. A lot of you raised your hand. I’d even say most of you, from what I can tell.

Now let me ask you a second question: how many of you no longer believe in those things, and you became a skeptic, because somebody got in your face, screaming, and called you an idiot, brain-damaged, and a retard? [Very few hands go up]

Perhaps the conflation of atheism with skepticism was deliberate, or perhaps he just remembered it that way, but does Dawkins really care so little for his own work that he couldn’t be bothered to spend five minutes preparing? Really?

AronRa is YouTube famous. That’s all I know about him. He told the story of how he came to be an evangelist for evolution and atheism. Most of what he discussed was anecdotal and he stated that he does not believe that we can be certain of anything – a fundamental scientific principle. However, his ‘bottom line’ contradicted all of his statements about truth and science (bold mine):

“You can’t reach these people. Religion has this basis of… the purpose of it is to make believe – now where I come from we call that ‘pretend’ – but that is the goal. You can’t question the conviction…”

This is simply not true. ‘Fantasy’ is not the goal or purpose of religion, even if that is what the beliefs boil down to in the end. Many religions even encourage questioning and testing one’s faith. A great many people have been “reached” through education. Think about how many current activists were once people of faith. Michael Shermer studied Christian theology before changing his major and eventually gave up religion, but not without a few years of education and many hours of discussion. Perhaps AronRa isn’t reaching anyone because his approach does not consider the audience’s current point of view. If you want to educate people, you need to understand where they are coming from.

“To me, honestly matters. Only accurate information has practical application. And accountability matter. If you’re going to teach something, make sure that you’re going to teach something that is correct. “

I could not agree more with this statement, but…

“Faith itself is inherently dishonest because faith is an unwarranted assumption that is inserted [sic] with unreasonable conviction. It would be unwise to hold an absolute conviction even when there is evidence, but we’re talking about something that it is asserted with no reason at all other than some subjective thing. “

Who says that all, or even most, believers ‘hold an absolute conviction’ or even that their beliefs are ‘unwarranted’? Who says that they have ‘no reason at all’ to believe? Do believers all agree that their evidence is subjective? Is subjective experience worthless? Does it equate to “no reason at all”? Absurd.

Then he finishes with this:

“Some of us have a need to believe and others have the desire to understand. Those who have a desire to understand will improve their perspective and will find the faults and will correct them. Those who have the need to believe will not correct anything and will remain just as wrong as they started out, at least.”

AronRa doesn’t know why people believe. Belief is not that simple.

Most people think that their beliefs are rational and that the beliefs of other people are emotional or otherwise irrational. This is a good example of the self-serving bias, which is probably second only to the confirmation bias in driving human behaviors today. For example, when Michael Shermer asked readers with religious beliefs why they believe in God, the most popular answers were related to rational arguments and the complexity of the universe. However, when he asked those same preople why others believed, the most popular answer was because it is comforting; belief is consoling and gives meaning and purpose to life. In other words, “I believe because I am rational. You believe because you need to.”

AronRa makes assumptions about why people believe because he does not understand why other people cannot see the world as he does. He discounts their reasons for believing. He discounts the evidence that they believe they have seen with their own eyes or heard with their own ears. It doesn’t matter if their evidence is refutable because they do not believe that their claims have been refuted; usually, it is not the evidence that is the problem, but one’s interpretation of it.

Essentially, AronRa’s claim that these people have no reason to believe is arrogant and disrespectful. What’s more is that he makes this claim with no evidence to support it, which is ironic. He placed people into two categories: those who need to believe and those who want to understand, a false dichotomy if I’ve ever heard one. People are much much, much more complicated than this. AronRa’s assertion also assumes that everyone has the capacity to understand. AronRa believes – assumes – that he is rational, yet in the midst of his criticism of others is an irrational argument to promote his beliefs about the difference between atheists and theists, a belief grounded in a little bit of casual observation and whole lot of assumption. How is this different from religion?

Then the most offensive and irrational panelist spoke. Tom Melchiorre’s website sports the tag line, “Making a World of Difference With a Positive Voice for Atheism”. Positive. Right.

Mr. Melchiorre talks about “…not just communicating atheism, but advancing atheism.” So, he is not just interested in secularism. He is not just interested in the right not to practice a religion. But he is also clearly not talking about education, so how does a lack of belief in something advance? As for the “positive” part, when discussing a model for activism, he mentions a motto of the LGBT movement, “We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it.” But he says,

“I have a version that’s ‘We’re here, you go to your hell, you crazy religious bastards. Get used to it.’”

This, of course, receives a round of laughter and applause. Melchiorre then justifies his meanness and intolerance by giving a history lesson. I wondered, though, if Melchiorre was also from Texas (AronRa’s home), because his version of history was definitely a little bit tilted:

“Malcolm X was a very dark black and he wore very dark clothes and he spoke ominously. He scared the shit out of white people…they did violence – verses Martin Luther King, who was strictly passivist…In reality, Martin Luther King in his movement as a pacifist would not have gotten as far as fast had Malcolm X not provided an extreme opposite and pretty much forced the white population in power to say, ‘Okay, we don’t want to deal with this violent black civil rights person, so who do we deal with? Oh, here’s this nice sweet guy over here, Martin Luther King, Jr., very pacifist.’ But who’s to say the two of them were not talking behind the scenes?”

At this point, Richard Dawkins did a double-take. That last sentence is very enlightening; Melchiorre is just making stuff up. That is fantasy.

“We need to have a second movement of atheism along side the hardcore – the hard atheists, the new atheists, and that’s pretty much what I’m calling the soft atheists, or the pacifist atheists. So that when the religious get a little upset and want to do something about our demands, but are afraid to talk to us angry, hardcore, confrontational, hostile, evil atheists, they don’t have to. They can go next door and talk to the softer, gentler, you know, pretty atheists who don’t shout at them.”

Melchiorre never mentioned The Overton Window, but some of the language he uses (such as “demands”) is reminiscent of other discussions about the application of this theory in other realms and discussions on the blogosphere last year about the relative contributions of MLK and X in the movement.  His description above fits with suggestions of The Overton Window quite well and even sounds a little like something out of Glenn Beck’s novel The Overton Window. No, I didn’t read it, but I have read some of one blogger’s review of it:

This, perhaps (though I am open to suggestions otherwise) is the most ridiculous moment of the chapter:

Just like Dr. King, we aim to eliminate evil, not those who perpetrate it. To speak of violence in any form is to play right into the hands of those who oppose us. They’ve already invested countless hours into portraying us as violent, hateful racists, and they are just waiting for the chance to further that story line. Don’t give it to them. Instead of Bill Ayers, give them Benjamin Franklin. Instead of Malcolm X, give them Rosa Parks. Instead of bin Laden, give them Gandhi.

The Overton Window is well known in the field of activism (Desiree Schell talked about it in her talk at TAM9) and I have been told that ‘new atheists’ sometimes evoke it, although I have not read much of this myself (I do not tend to follow their conversations). However, there is no scientific support for this theory.

The Overton Window simply describes any set of cultural norms. It also attempts to explain how those norms can be changed. Unfortunately, I did not find it in any of the academic literature in political science or sociology. The Overton Window is a pop-political science (bordering on pseudoscientific) concept based on a technique for persuasion called “door in the face”, which is found in abundance in the psychological literature. The door in the face technique starts with a much larger request than one hopes will be accepted. For example, if you were a charity asking for money and hoping for $50 from each household, you might ask for $500 to start. Once this request is refused and you ask for $50, the new request seems reasonable in comparison. You are much more likely to receive something from the target than if you simply asked for $50 outright.

The idea of The Overton Window theory is that starting with outrageous demands such as “abolish public schools!” will move the window of acceptable demands enough to receive support for what you really want (e.g., school vouchers).

There are probably some kernels of truth to this theory and the tactics it dictates may work in some specific situations, but lasting change is unlikely. Humans are very good at anchoring and adjusting. In other words, we use points for comparison. However, psychological effects involve the behavior of individuals on average and in a limited set of situations. Groups of people are not individuals and do not behave like individuals. Political affiliation, religion, and other attitudes are often much, much more complicated than such a simple theory could predict. There are many more factors involved in what makes culture. For example, who says that anyone has to listen to either the person with the extreme view or the moderate? And, as Desiree Shell mentioned, even the theory says that people need to be able to tell the difference between these two and they need to care about that difference.

There is an abundance of literature which suggests that the stronger or harder the sell, the less likely an individual will respond by changing their view. They are much more likely to become more polarized in the other direction. Skeptics demonstrate this all the time. So do atheists. What are believers to think when they meet activists who approach believers with belligerence, insults, and arrogance? It is more likely to mistrust any atheist than they are to compare the behavior to that of other atheists they meet.  My prediction, or rather an analogy of what I predict, is found in the comic I commissioned from my son(click to enlarge), dubbed The Overkill Window.

Even if he was not thinking of The Overton Window, Melchiorre’s example of Malcolm and Martin is a story, nothing more. There is no evidence to support the history he described. In fact, it is not the most parsimonious explanation for the success of the civil rights movement. During the 1950s and 60s baby boomers were hitting puberty and early adolescence. What happens during adolescence? Kids rebel. Against everything. The Korean War, the impending Vietnam War, the momentum of civil rights prior to this time, the fact that the black community in the United States grew much more quickly than the white community, and many other factors overshadow the inner conflicts in the movement itself.

Melchiorre’s suggestion that Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were collaborating is completely irrational. He said this with absolutely no evidence whatsoever and even provided the counter-evidence that they met only once. But he saved the most offensive stuff for the end (bold mine):

“They can go next door and talk to the softer, gentler, you know, pretty atheists who don’t shout at them. Now, those are not humanists. Those are not freethinkers. Those are not rationalists. All of whom pretty much share our view, they just go by a different name. But if we want to communicate and advance atheism, we have to deal with the religious as one group. Atheists as one group. We can’t have the religious going to the humanists, because that means we’re still marginalized as atheists. To advance atheism, we have to be atheists as a group.”

Um. Who are not humanists? Is “You go to your hell, you crazy religious bastards” what humanists say?  Who are not rational? Is it those who evoke unproven theories and squeeze and mold them to meet one’s needs?  Who again? And how could Malcolm and Martin be both different and one group?

What I would really like to see happen: atheist activists take their ball and go play in their own yard. I have nothing against those who work in both fields and know the difference. I know many. Most I would consider secular activists rather than atheists. But people like AronRa and Tom Melchiorre make the job of Skeptics much more difficult when they, or those like them, claim to be fighting the same fight as Skeptics. Although I did not sense that AronRa or Melchiorre were familiar with Skepticism, Richard Dawkins and Rebecca Watson suggested that Skepticism and Atheism are interchangeable (and they are not alone, not by a long shot).

In Part III, I will talk about offensive ignorance, arrogance, and the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

*”Big-S Skepticism” refers to the work of the skepticism movement in promoting the practice of skepticism.

Related posts:

1. Take Back Skepticism, Part I: The Elephant in the Room
2. Take Back Skepticism, Part III: The Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Nutshell

Arguments over scope and the conflation of atheism and skepticism have reached a fever pitch, as have arguments over tone. I will talk about some of this, but I will not attempt to explain all of the issues in any detail because everything that needs to be said has been said here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here… Well, you get the picture. In fact, if you want to argue the definition of skepticism or Skepticism* in the comments of this post, don’t bother. Instead, read what I wrote about it last year, which I would simply repeat in answer. It is clear from the comments on these posts that those who need to are not listening and I am rarely in the mood to spin my wheels. Instead, I will try to focus on the main reason these arguments should not be abandoned: it would be bad Skepticism.

In my opinion, the tone and scope arguments dance around a bigger problem and I do not believe that we can afford to ignore the elephants in the room any longer. We should not give people ‘a pass’ simply because they claim to be on our side.

In both his TAM6 and TAM9 keynote addresses, Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about a letter he wrote to the editor of The New York Times regarding a case in which a teacher was accused of promoting creationist-style anti-science (bold mine):

To the Editor:

People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah’s ark carried dinosaurs.

This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it’s about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.

Neil deGrasse Tyson
New York, Dec. 19, 2006

Similarly, what I suggest is this: Skepticism, as a movement, is not hindered so much by the conflation of atheism and skepticism, the ridicule of believers, or attempts to promote values-based ideology as it is hindered by the blatant ignorance, arrogance, and irrationality displayed when those acts are committed.

In a field dedicated to reducing ignorance and irrationality, a field in which arrogance is toxic, I find this kind of behavior offensive. It is time that we reclaim Skepticism and restore its credibility and integrity.

A Tiny Bit of Background

The issues of tone and scope have been widely discussed for years, but Phil Plait’s now famous “Don’t be a Dick” speech at TAM8 has become a centerpiece in the debate over tone and Daniel Loxton has become its whipping boy. Daniel also advocates for the limitation of scope for the movement for several reasons. It is the most basic of these limitations that seem to kick up the most dust: empirical claims. It is the dust around religion that I would like to talk about in these posts.

But before I do, let me say this about tone: decades of research tells us that it matters. The next time you read something like, “Neither method is well-supported” or “They can’t prove that my way doesn’t work”, remember that the Discovery Institute still produces propaganda about the irreducible complexity of baterial flagella, despite having been educated about the clear and indisputable counter-evidence repeatedly over the past decade. Then read Tavris & Aronson’s Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me).

What the research tells us is that swearing, sarcasm, and ridicule are great ways to rally your followers and gain new followers. This behavior polarizes groupthink, excites, incites, strengthens group cohesion, and promotes ‘othering’ of outgroup members. The target of ridicule and sarcasm is extremely likely to polarize as well, adhering more strongly to their beliefs** as those beliefs are threatened. Although direct and non-confrontational criticism of a belief is not likely to change the mind of the believer either, it is a seed with chance to germinate and is less likely to strengthen the belief.

Just so that you don’t think that I am a hypocrite, I will say right now that have very little hope that the targets of my criticisms in these posts will allow anything to grow; that soil is hostile. Planting seeds is not my goal. Okay, enough background. Let’s get back to the point:

Skepticism 2.x has been costly.

It is unclear when the tide turned, but at some point the expansion of skepticism as a movement began to get ugly. With “Skepticism 2.0″, the rise of wonderful and creative independent and grassroots efforts made possible by technology, came a wave of fresh new voices. Unfortunately, this has coincided with changes in culture and education practices which seem to be rooted in the United States, but are spreading beyond our borders very quickly – practices which reinforce shallow thinking when it is accompanied by overconfidence. The result is that too many of the new voices are – to borrow wording from Greg Laden – speaking out of their nether regions.

One factor is that self-identified skeptics in general do not seem to be much more rational than the general public. Intelligence is not enough. A rational person is one who has two things:

1. the tools (knowledge and intelligence) to reason well in a given situation.
2. open-mindedness and flexibility of thought; the ability to consider that their current knowledge might be wrong.

Without both of these characteristics, individuals resolve cognitive dissonance in all manner of ways except the rational way, which is to alter their current knowledge to accommodate new evidence. I do not believe that anyone has done the research, but it makes sense that self-described skeptics and atheists have more of the first characteristic than the general public. Atheism is correlated with education and IQ; it seems reasonable that skepticism would be as well. However, I have seen little evidence that, beyond many successful professional skeptics and scientists, they are any more open-minded or flexible than the general public. In fact, I would not be surprised to find that the opposite is generally true. And although there is “generational” component to this phenomenon, some of the most stubborn people that I have seen in the Q & A sessions at meetings, shouting that “some people are JUST WRONG!!” and putting people into two categories: atheists and irrational people, were middle-aged white men.

The behaviors which, in my opinion, are the most troublesome, are:

• conflating atheism with skepticism. This goes beyond the old arguments about testability and method vs. conclusion. In recent years, I have see these terms used interchangeably far too often. More and more speakers at major conferences (like TAM) have little connection with Skepticism and more atheism-laden conferences are adopting names and promotional language which suggests that the meeting is about Skepticism. I suspect that the overlap of ‘members’ of the atheism and skepticism movements is at the root of this.
• calling for social change related to political ideology or other values. Attempts by Michael Shermer and Sam Harris to promote their values were at least attempts to provide scientific support for those values. More recently Shermer publicly acknowledged (during the climate change panel at TAM8) that political values are outside the scope of Skepticism. However, there remain a large number of Skeptics who continue to argue for the promotion of ‘progressive values’ and Liberal ideology in the name of Skepticism.
• insisting that offending and ridiculing believers is an effective means of outreach.

These behaviors are troublesome because they impair us in various ways. The impairments are severe enough to see daily if one is on the front lines of grassroots work. For example, recruiting students to my campus club was easy. Retaining them was not. Several of my students abandoned the work they’d begun after encounters with other ‘skeptics’ at meetings and online. This happened with students whose beliefs can be described as agnostic and atheist; imagine if any of my recruits were Christians.

Even more troublesome than these behaviors is the uneducated groupthink that arises from these behaviors. By ‘uneducated’ I mean incorrect. Or so far afield that it’s ‘not even wrong’. This ignorance (and refusal to learn) is another very influential factor. If one of the major goals of Skepticism is to educate, shouldn’t we all understand the material?

Arrogance and ignorance, along with some shallow thinking, need only a cause to produce mob behavior. Opinions become stronger, more polarized, and more emotionally-laden they are spewed by overconfident people with an audience. When groupthink grows, hate often grows with it.

There is a very large overlap in the make-up of atheist and skeptic communities. My Facebook friends list is full of people whom I suspect sent requests only because I am an atheist. Despite little interest in atheism or religion, I once supported atheism-related activism. I continue to be a die-hard supporter of secularism. However, I will think twice before supporting any endeavor with the label ‘atheism’ in the future. In my opinion, the current climate of the atheist movement is making the work of Skepticism much more difficult. It has become, in my opinion, a septic tank of arrogance and hate.

For example, when reports spread that the man suspected of killing more than 90 people in Norway was a Christian, I read comment after hate-filled comment on Facebook and Google+ calling for the annihilation of Christians. Comments which claimed that Breivik was mentally ill were quickly attacked under the straw man that mental illness somehow absolves him of responsibility. I don’t happen to agree that an illness is more than an explanation of behavior (even in court, ‘insanity’ is much more than a diagnosis of ‘illness’), but that’s beside the point. What we wish to be true has no bearing on what is true. Even if, as reported at the time, some of the evidence suggested that he committed these acts as part of a God-loving crusade, the idea that he would not have been just as motivated by some other extreme ideology (e.g., anti-capitalism ideology) is absurd and an individual acting alone is much more likely to be mentally ill than to be part of an organized terrorist effort. His manifesto eventually revealed that he was fueled by any ideology that fit into his clearly delusional view of the world.

Some argued that all terrorists are mentally ill; there is no difference between Breivik and an organization like Al-Qaeda. Or they described all terrorists as ‘evil’ – an evil created by religion, as if religion is the only reason that people commit terrible acts. This simply is not reality. Psychologists have studied ‘evil’ relentlessly since the atrocities of the holocaust during World War II and we have learned that average people will commit some fairly heinous acts if situational factors are aligned. If we do not recognize that good, sane people are capable of bad acts, we will be helpless to prevent it. What’s more, such extreme ‘othering’ may make us feel better, but it closes our eyes to our own potential for wrongdoing.

The right-wing propaganda machine has done its best to paint Breivik as an isolated, politically-motivated nut job who was not a Christian. This is clearly wrong. However, painting him as part of a Christian terrorism-laden culture is equally wrong and serves only to fuel even more hatred. Hate breeds hate. Following are some examples of the kind of hate that I see growing among atheists.

A comment on a link to a report that the Westboro Baptists plan to protest at the funerals of the Norway victims made by a now ex-Facebook friend who claims to work for ‘The God Killers Inc’ (and two replies):

“FUCK THE Westboro Baptist Cult, and the God they pray to. I hope someone guns down this whole fucking group of hate fueling motherfuckers.”

“Hopefully the Norwegians will take them into custodian at the airport then fly them far north and dump them on a shrinking iceberg!”

“I always wondered why that hasn’t happened already? What a sad world we live in where innocent children are slaughtered and WBC isn’t? WTF OMG LMFAO…not really “

A Status update from the same ‘God Killer’ quoted above:

“Got banned on Teens Need Jesus page for telling the truth on the BS they were slinging trying to suck teens into their cult. Only took 1 day before I got banned this time. The Truth Is Consider A Crime By The Religitards.”

A commenter wrote this about a member of a Christian teens group:

“sick fucks are everywhere and need to be grouped together and sent to antartica or somewhere nice and cold”

…then posted a warning about a Facebook virus without first doing a simple search to find out if it was a hoax (it is).

Another now ex-Facebook friend whose comment, “fucking religitards!” prompted me to visit his wall, which reveals contact information that includes links to several Herbalife sites. His ‘activities and interests’ section includes ‘fuck Walmart’, ‘fuck religion’, ‘profanity’, and ‘rationalism’. Yeah, ‘rationalism’. Because God is fucking stupid and Walmart is fucking evil, but Herbalife really works, right?

Finally, one former Facebook friend blew me away with this series of equal-opportunity status updates and link introductions:

“The fat behind the desk rush said the heat index is all made by the government. And the earth is cooling f ing idiot”
- on an article about Rush Limbaugh

“Xtains fundies are diferent musnutts fundies”

“This guy is bat shit crazy and be taken awaywith men in white coats” – about Glenn Beck

“Pat was funny he’s jusy bat shit crazy now.” – on a post titled Tell MSNBC to Fire Pat Buchanan!

“Another bat shit crazy” – about Donald Trump

“Just found out 22 dems votedfor bonehead biil the f ing retards”

And the shocker (bold mine):

“Hate spreads quickly with the idiots he he bought his clips from the US” – on a link titled Norwegian Shooting Suspect’s ‘Manifesto’ Inspired By American Right-Wing Thinkers

Which was followed the next day by:

“F ing republicnuts I hope they get what coming to them” – on an Article in The Daily called How Republicans Screwed the Pooch

When I can’t tell the ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad guys’, there are no good guys.

And this leads me to something I’ve been trying to write about for weeks. In Part II I will discuss examples of irrationality and hypocrisy at the World Atheist Convention.

*”Big-S Skepticism” refers to the work of the skepticism movement in promoting the practice of skepticism.

**In my writings, the word “belief” refers to anything that an individual holds to be true. This includes those things that we accept on faith, because of convincing evidence, or as a philosophical conclusion.

Related posts:

1. Take Back Skepticism, Part III: The Dunning-Kruger Effect
2. Take Back Skepticism, Part II: The Overkill Window
3. There is No Debate Over Evolution

Maria Walters: Rational. Compassionate. Not an asshole.

Read what she has to say about hypocrisy and self-righteousness in skepticism.

For my part, I’d like to say that I know *fundamental christians* whom I judge to be good critical thinkers. Now, I am totally baffled that they are able to maintain that particular faith, but I can’t say that it is “selective rationalism” because we don’t discuss it at length.

There are at least two issues here, but I would like to discuss the specific case of Hal Bidlack, whose name in a tweet prompted responses which let to Maria’s post.

What Maria notes about Hal Bidlack is that he has expressed a belief which, by his own admission, was not arrived at through reason. This is not hypocritical. What is hypocritical is to label him an enemy of skepticism, yet blow off Penn Jillette‘s years of AGW denial – something he admitted was not founded on reason and I believe currently stands at “I don’t know”. These are not sacred cows. These are areas these particular skeptics choose not to overanalyze.

We are not obligated to apply reason to every aspect of our lives.

We are obligated to admit when we do not apply reason. We are obligated to refrain from arguing about what we have not reasoned. We are obligated to ensure that holding onto that belief is not harmful to others (by not acting on it). We are not obligated to force ourselves to follow every argument to its conclusion just because most of our friends do.

A truly rational person understands that critical evaluation of a claim or belief carries the risk that the conclusion will be unpleasant. Not all truths are pretty.

Some of us would rather know the truth, regardless of how unpleasant it is. Others find so much comfort in a belief which may or may not be accurate that giving it up is not worth the risk. Why don’t they have the right to hang onto them without being called a hypocrite?

Just sayin’.

Related posts:

1. There is No Debate Over Evolution
2. While I Was Sleeping

A recent event not included in my last post, but one about which I am very excited, is the release of Daniel Loxton’s book Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be. It is a book aimed at children ages 8 to 13 and covers the basics of natural selection and speciation in the most clear and concise language I have found on this topic so far.

Perhaps I am a little biased as I expected a great book, given his track record writing-wise, but even I was surprised by the clarity and creativity of some of the examples. My 9 year old son was looking forward to the illustrations. Daniel sometimes shares his works in progress and both of my art-minded kids (their father’s influence) think that Mr. Loxton is awesomrific. Of course the illustrations did not disappoint, but he was even more intrigued by the discussion of natural selection in a grove of trees. I thought my son understood natural selection quite well, but it seems that his 3rd grade lessons focused on biodiversity and the results of selection.

I was impressed with a discussion of the often-forgotten limits and compromises in evolution, but that is a lesson my boys learned quite well from playing Spore™.

My 12 year old son, who is obsessed with man’s origins, wrote a review. Here it is, unedited:

Evolution: How We and All living Things Came to Be is a amazing book. It puts a difficult concept into easy to understand words. Digital art recreates dinasaurs, fossils, and prehistoric creatures right on the page. Analogies, comparisons, and visualization helps a young reader grasp this concept. This book directly tackles questions about evolution. In conclusion, cold hard facts and mind-boggling illustrations laced with superior analogies makes Evolution: How We and All living Things Came to Be a must for the young scientist!

It should be obvious by now that we love the book and highly recommend it. It doesn’t sound like something that skeptics would disagree about, does it?

Skepticism activists and advocates disagree often and there are a few topics guaranteed to heat up the room. The most volatile is libertarian-style fiscal conservativism, but a close second is the mix of skepticism with atheism. This is a multi-faceted issue with several questions whose answers are debated, the most contentious of which is, “Can science address questions of faith?”

This seems like a simple question, but it is it not. It is really a philosophical question and a rather complicated one. As such, I do not plan to answer it in this post. What I will say is that insulting people of faith by calling them irrational (what they’ll hear: stupid) is a great way to get their attention, but it would likely ensure that efforts to convince them of the merits of critical thinking are wasted. I also believe that the most important property of science is its lack of arrogance, the open-mindedness that comes with the knowledge that our conclusions depend on the infallibility of a few fundamental principles we assume are true. To deny that 100% certainty is not possible is dogmatic, unreasonable, and anti-science. For that reason, my philosophical position on the matter is irrelevant. I would not claim to know the absolute truth. Note that open-mindedness should not be taken as an agnotistic stance. I am quite certain that there is no God. I am simply not 100% certain of anything.

So, what does this have to do with a kid’s book on evolution?

The book includes an answer to the question, “What about religion?”

In his answer, Daniel makes a clear statement that science does not address such questions, nor does it interpret knowledge in a spiritual way. This answer is not an answer at all, but a caveat which absolves science of the responsibility of placing value judgments on its discoveries. This is another extremely important property of science. It is concerned with finding truths, regardless of how ugly or unpleasant those truths are. “Passing the buck” is not a matter of dodging the question. It is a matter of preserving the objectivity of science.

What Daniel has done is to immediately dispel any notions that the content of the book must destroy ones’ faith. For that he has taken a good deal of criticism, but he has also received a good deal of support. Although I am thoroughly disgusted that such a section is necessary, I think it was a wise decision. What we need to do is focus on the fact that there is no debate over the theory of evolution, regardless of how much proponents of misguided-design kick and scream about it. Since that theory is so obviously true, the question of religion is moot.

Many have blogged about this issue including (since the book was released) Daniel himself. Each time it comes up, the comments of the blog which breaches the subject become a bit of a war zone.

Related posts:

1. Take Back Skepticism, Part I: The Elephant in the Room
2. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
3. Take Back Skepticism, Part III: The Dunning-Kruger Effect