Missionary Position

So yesterday evening just after dinner, my family and I are all sitting and watching our regular Sunday night TV shows when there is a somewhat timid-sounding burst of knocks at the door. We all go silent, unsure if we really heard a knock, or whether it was the dog bumping into something upstairs and making noises or what. My teen-age son looks out the kitchen window (this is the only way to see who's at the door of our apartment). He says there's a guy in a suit standing there.

Great, I think. Some kind of salesman—probably looking to sell vacuum cleaners or insurance or maybe religion or something. Just to be clear, I have, on occasion, been known to buy a bit of candy or cookies from a child going door-to-door, but only because a) I'm in the mood for a snack and if b) I'm OK with the music program or Girl Scouts or whatever it is the kid is trying to promote. I don't like the fact that some of these organizations exploit kids in this way, but it's hard to say "No" to a child standing there with a box of cookies in her hand and a look of hope in her eye. 

Also, I fucking love Samoas.

Anyway, as I was saying, I generally don't care for the whole door-to-door thing. First of all, if there's something I want, I will go and get it. If I need insurance (which I don't, as it happens), I'll go shop for it. If I need a new appliance, or steaks delivered to my door, or bottles of knock-off fragrances or magazines or anything else, I will either go get that thing or order it online. I don't need some asshole interrupting family time, TV time, video game time, dinner time or any other part of my personal life with a sales pitch. So, I'm already miffed when I go to answer the door in my pajama shorts and tattered T-shirt.

I open the door, and there are two young men in suits and ties standing there.

"Yeah?" I inquire.

They stand there staring at me, mouths agape. Perhaps they were surprised someone bothered to answer the door. Several seconds pass, and neither of them says a word. They just stand there like a couple of idiots.

"What do you need?" I ask.

"Umm … we're missionaries—"

"OK," I respond. "Bye." And I then proceeded to close the door firmly in their idiot faces.

After a few minutes, my son went back to the kitchen to get something, and looked out the window again. They were still standing there. What, were they in shock? Were they just confused? Or were they performing some sort of prayer or incantation to either save or curse my soul?

I like to think they were putting some kind of sign on my door-post, like those old hobo signs that hobos used to let other hobos know where they could get work or a good meal, or to watch out for a nasty dog and such. Maybe they were putting a warning to other proselytizers that there was a doomed non-believer inside … like a Satanist or *gasp* an atheist! Watch out, the warning would signify, the guy in this apartment won't let you finish your spiel. Best move on.

But seriously, why does this happen? Why must I be interrupted by stupid "missionaries" at my door? And seriously? Missionaries? In the Midwest of the United States? Like there's the remotest possibility that there's anyone in this country who hasn't heard about JAYZUS and his wonderful plan for the salvation of my soul and the disappearance of my cash and my ability to think coherently.

Now, I used to be more polite to these people when they came around. I mean, I understand they have their beliefs and they probably really do think they're helping somehow. But you know what? I don't care.

I don't begrudge anyone their personal beliefs, no matter how far out they might be. But the minute you decide you have to go around and push your stupid superstitions on complete strangers, then you've lost the right to politeness. If you want to go hold a meeting—put up flyers or web ads or whatever and invite people to come talk about your beliefs, then great. If you want to go on the internet and find people who are interested in philosophy, theology, discussions about gods and the origins of the universe and other such topics, then that's OK, too. You can even go strike up a conversation with someone at a coffee shop or someplace public, as long as they don't mind. If you want to go out into the public square and chant about Krishna, Buddha, Jesus or whatever, I'm fine with that. Have fun doing it. I'm all about freedom of expression. Put up religious art … as long as it's not on public property. 

But, if part of your "calling" is to pester total strangers who have expressed no interest in you or your beliefs at their private residences, then fuck you and your stupid imaginary sky friend. You'll get the same respect and consideration from me that you've shown to me, which is to say none.

Thoughts on "Dogmatic" Skepticism (Part 4)

Continuing on ...

• Medicine

This one is a very touchy subject, as it hits so close to where we live. It's also the subject of a lot of current and lively debate, what with some people who would normally be considered Skeptics coming out against vaccination, even in the midst of a mild pandemic. Generally, vaccinations are a good idea. There's just way too much science in favor of the practice. But, again, this is a category where anyone who expresses doubt about the current scientific wisdom is summarily lumped in with the "crazies" without any real consideration. The case that springs immediately to my mind is that of Bill Maher. Now, I don't always find myself in agreement with Mr. Maher, but I very frequently do. A few weeks ago, his guest was Tennessee Ex-Senator Dr. Bill Frist, and they had a brief discussion on the topic of health care - and vaccinations. Bill Maher actually came out of the exchange looking like he was the nut. (As opposed to the guy who diagnosed a woman in a persistent vegetative state via video, and challenged her on-site doctor's diagnosis!)

The very next week, Bill Maher clarified his position. He's not completely anti-vaccination, and he's not one of these "germ-theory" deniers, either. His main arguments come down to this:

• We're a sick society due to how and what we eat, and our environment.

(Chemical polllutants in the water, air, food.)

• The Medical "Establishment" has made mistakes and is profit-driven.

• New treatments (such as vaccinations) should be studied very thoroughly

- this new H1N1 vaccine, specifically.

• He takes a skeptical view of, and believes we should question what he

calls "Western" medicine.

Now part of his problem is, I believe, his terminology. By using the term "Western" medicine, one immediately wonders, "Western as opposed to what?" Is he touting acupuncture? Chinese herbal remedies? Homeopathy? Meditation? Channeling "Chi" or something of that sort? Well, I don't know for sure, but I don't think that's what he means. I think he's referring to a belief that we in the West have a tendency to treat symptoms rather than deal with underlying issues. To some extent I agree with this. (Look at how we're dealing with global climate change, the current economic woes, or the heath care crisis in America.) I can't speak for Mr. Maher, but I suspect what he's worried about is our tendency in the U.S. to allow the perceived health of our economy - especially as relates to Big Business and Wall Street Banking/Insurance interests - to trump most (if not all) other societal considerations. (And now I'm wandering off topic again ...)

Without debating the merits of what he said and/or what he actually meant, I'd like to note the reaction among the Skeptical Community at large. The immediate reaction was a sort of head-shaking disappointment, and a declaration that despite what many of us thought before, Bill Maher isn't a real skeptic. "What a shame. He seems so on-the-ball otherwise."

This reaction, more than anything else, got me to thinking about this topic. Bil Maher is an atheist. He's pro-science. He doesn't believe in any kind of after-life or psychics or ESP, or (famously) conspiracy theories. But because he questioned the efficacy of a particular new vaccination (because he believed it may have been rushed, and believes that more testing should be done), he's suddenly not one of US.

If that reaction doesn't fit the very definition of dogma, I don't know what does. This struck me as a very knee-jerk reaction. Now, I'm not saying I agree whole-heartedly with Bill Maher on this issue, and I'm certainly not anti-vaccination, but is what he said SO bad? I think he went a little far in actually advising people not to get this vaccination, but should we just blindly accept whatever comes down to us from the scientific/medical community? If that's the case, aren't we making science a sort of church?

• Conspiracy Theories

This is another case where there's a mental tendency to lump a wide range of topics under a category, and then dismiss them all. There are conspiracy theorists that are way out there: Flat Earthers, Holocaust Deniers, Moon Landing Hoaxers, Alien/Illuminati/Zionist Overlord beliefs, and the like. And some theories contain a range within themselves - the 9/11 Truth Movement, for example, contains people who believe that George W. Bush actually arranged to have the WTC wired with explosives without anyone being alerted to the fact, or that the planes that crashed into the towers were actually remote-piloted missiles. Others in this group believe that the Bush administration just didn't try very hard to stop a vague threat of a terrorist attack because they felt they could use it to their political advantage. That's a pretty big range! The former theories just seem crazy on their face - but should still be investigated. The latter seems more plausible - but still require some kind of proof before they should be believed. The same goes for various theories behind the Kennedy Assassination, or Alien Cover-Ups or any number of other conspiracy theories.

And here's the thing: there have actually been real conspiracies planned, and some even executed throughout history. Do a little research on these (off the top of my head, and in no particular order):

MKULTRA

Operation Northwoods

The Gunpowder Plot

The Ajax Plot (Overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran),

Operation Mongoose

The Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment

The Manhattan Project

Swiss Secret Files Scandal

COINTELPRO

The Watergate Scandal

Operation Valkyrie

The US Business Plot to Overthrow FDR,

The thing is - every one of the plots on that list is real. As in: well- established, admitted and complete with release of documentation. As in: there's no debate regarding these.

Now just because some conspiracies have been hatched, doesn't make them all true. Each of the other Conspiracy Theories needs to be judged on it own merits rather than lumped together and dismissed categorically. Not because most of them are plausible - personally, I think they're mostly borderline-insane - but because truth should be as well-established as possible.

Know what's funny? Blll Maher considers all the 9/11 people to be crazy, and dismisses them out-of-hand, but other skeptics see him as crazy, and dismiss his medical statements out-of-hand.

So the dogmatic thinking works both ways.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it was exactly that type of mindset that got me questioning the beliefs with which I was raised to begin with. It was in an effort to avoid simply accepting received wisdom that I began to study many opinions that differed from what I'd been taught, and then, most importantly, to think about things independently. Personally, I'm not going to subscribe to any dogma. I think there is value in pursuing truth in the most rigorously scientific way possible, and accepting the results wherever they lead us.

Thoughts on "Dogmatic" Skepticism (Part 3)

So, what's wrong with dismissing all of this nonsense, and getting on with the science, already?

Well, first of all, the best way to fight ignorance is with knowledge. So these claims should be investigated.

Secondly, I think it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone claiming to believe that science is the best way to understand the world to dismiss anyone's beliefs without at least making the attempt to assess their claims scientifically.

Finally, what if some of the believers turn out to be right? Here's a little secret: science isn't always right! Or to state that more accurately, the body of scientific knowledge - what we think we know - is sometimes proven wrong. The scientific method might be the best way we know to get at the truth, but part of that method is to constantly re-evaluate what we think we know, to make sure that new data, new knowledge, new evidence hasn't shown our previously-held beliefs to be faulty. (That's what peer-review is all about, after all.)

I'm not going to directly address the existence of a god (for lack of a better word) here. Nor am I going to go into detail about why I believe that scientific inquiry is the best method for gaining knowledge about the world. These are deeper philosophical questions that fall outside the area of my topic.

I'm more concerned with what I see as a dogmatic take on some of the lesser "Commonly-Held Beliefs" of the so-called Modern Skeptical Movement. So let's take a look at those:

• The "Paranormal."

As a Rationalist, I don't believe there can be any such thing as the "paranormal." Anything that can be described and can be proven, by its very nature, must fall within the realm of the "normal." But that's just quibbling over semantics.

What about specific claims, such as ESP or telepathy? If these things are proven to exist, there must be some way to measure or test them. Attempts have been made, but with without any conclusive positive results. Such abilities could exist, and even have a scientific explanation. As much as we have learned about the brain in the last century, there is still so much more we do not understand. We should retain an open, if skeptical mind regarding these abilities. After all, before the work of people like Hertz and Marconi, the idea of invisible waves in the air that could be manipulated in order to communicate across great distances would have seemed ridiculous. What if some of us are developing an ability to use these or other invisible waves to transmit and read something like these within our own bodies, similar to the way our ears and eyes pick up the correct electromagnetic frequencies to allow us to see and hear?

Do I believe in such powers? No. Personally I think it's kind of a ridiculous claim. (Where are the organs that allow this? We need eyes to see, and ears to hear. Wouldn't we need some other organs to transmit and receive these other waves?) Still, just because I and most other skeptics don't believe this is possible, doesn't mean research shouldn't be done. We must retain our objective open-mindedness as best we can. (Just not so open that our brains fall out, as James "The Amazing" Randi has often said - though, I think he's probably quoting someone else.)

• Extra-Terrestrials.

As I stated before, I believe that the chances that there is probably some life out there, somewhere, are pretty good. How do I justify this claim? Pure mathematics. The more we explore the universe, the more it looks like the conditions for life to exist may not be as rare as we thought at one time. It looks like there are plenty of places where the basic building blocks for life (as we know it*) can be found. The real question is more one of how life begins, and what is required for that. It could be that through some accident of fate (or, perhaps the will of a god, or other outside force) that our planet just happened to be the lucky one-in-a-googolplex spot where all the conditions were just right for life to begin. I personally have a hard time believing that - it seems, on the surface, a ridiculous position to take. But, no matter how much sense it makes, we just can't know - at least not until we come into contact with actual extra-terrestrial life.

As far as aliens coming here from across the stars and abducting/probing/mutilating/buzzing us ... well, let's just say I'm Skeptical. First, there's the lack of any actual physical evidence (unless you believe the conspiracy theories ... which I'll deal with later). Next, there's the issue of astronomical distances.

As far as "UFO" sightings ... well, they're just what the term implies: unidentified. Many become identified, eventually, but even the ones that aren't have much more likely explanations than aliens. Our own Earth governments have always had plenty of things to hide - sometimes from one another, and sometimes from their own citizens. (That may sound like conspiracy theory ... again, we'll get to that later.)

Don't get me wrong ... I would love to believe that there is intelligent life out there with the technological ability to travel between the stars. My desire to believe, though, is precisely why I'm so cautious about believing. I'm more interested in truth. And that's why we can't simply dismiss sightings or claims of abduction. They should be investigated ... but very critically. Our search needs to continue as well, both in the form of physical exploration and programs such as SETI.

• Cryptozoology

I think many Skeptics are far too dismissive of Cryptozoology. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not a believer in Nessie or Bigfoot, but there probably are things out there that simply fall outside our common experience. It wasn't all that long ago that Architeuthis was considered a bit fantastical. The problem comes in lumping all study of unknown creatures under one category. Some of the bigfoot believers, for example, border on the fanatical and will believe any evidence in support of their pet theory, while others are quite rational, and have well-thought-out (even reasonable) hypotheses regarding the existence of sasquatch. We skeptics need to guard ourselves from taking a polar opposite view and dismissing all evidence out of hand. Of course there hasn't been any good, solid evidence yet, but that doesn't mean there never will be. We also need to guard against charging rational believers with "guilt by association" with the fanatical ones.

More topics to come in the next part. ...

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

*By life "as we know it" I mean, life that we could recognize as life. There could be some form of "life" out there that we wouldn't readily recognize. That's a whole other topic, though ... one for the new field of Astrobiology (or Xenobiology), which, by the way, many probably consider, like cryptozoology, an illegitimate field of study.

Thoughts on "Dogmatic" Skepticism (Part 2)

Before I continue on, I'd like to note that these are all just my opinions as an individual. I'm just a person thinking about things and spewing my raw thoughts out on the internet for anyone to see. I haven't done any real research on this topic - this isn't meant to be a sociological study, just my own anecdotal observations. If someone wants to take any of the premises of this article and do an actual scientific study on this topic, I'd be interested to read their findings. Personally, I haven't the time nor the means. So, please, dear reader, like with any utterance of opinion, take my statements with a grain of salt. (Or a block, if necessary.)


OK, so if there ARE any "tenets" of the modern Skeptical Movement, what might they be? There are no official tenets, but it seems to me that there are two main unwritten rules:


The Big Two:

• There is No God. Or at least, there probably isn't. (Atheism or Agnosticism)

• Scientific Inquiry is the Best (perhaps only) Way to Understand the Universe.


The first is pretty self-explanatory. Skeptics tend not to buy into gods or creation mythology. Skeptics come from a place of disbelief. Where most religionists come from a place of belief. To boil the argument down to its simplest terms:

Skeptic: "I do not believe there is a god."
Believer: "You cannot prove that there isn't, so you should believe."
Skeptic: "You are the one making the unverified claim, so you have to provide proof."

(Then they get angry at one another, holy/unholy war is declared, and no one's mind is changed, though a lot of people are worse off for the whole interaction.)

The second one is simply a belief that the best way to understand things is to examine the process of observation and experimentation. Further, statements or hypotheses must be rigorously tested before they can be accepted. For example, it's no good to just claim, say, "People become ill because of goblin curses ... or tiny little life-forms that live in our bodies." Those statements need to be proven. (Turns out the tiny little life forms have been proven to exist. Curse-happy Goblins, on the other hand ...)

Everything else sort of follows from these Main two tenets ...

Commonly-Held Beliefs:

• There is No Immortal Soul, or Afterlife of Any Kind.

• There is No Such Thing as the "Paranormal."

• We are Not Being Visited By Extra-Terrestrials.

• Cryptozoology is Not Science

• "Alternative" Medicine is Useless and Often Dangerous

• Proponents of "Conspiracy Theories" are Wrong (maybe even crazy)


I'm sure there are more, but I'm not going to wrack my brain or do a Google search, or take any measures that might fall under the category of research. Partly because I'm lazy, and partly because this is just me thinking. (See the disclaimer above.)


Now let's look at some of these Commonly-Held Beliefs from the Skeptical viewpoint ...

The immortal soul issue. Let's face it, there's no proof, outside unverified anecdotes to support the Immortal Soul concept. Of course, that doesn't prove there isn't one. However, the burden of proof (as with theism, above) should be on the believer. Those guys on Ghost Hunters are performing pure science fiction entertainment masquerading as pseudo-science (which is BS masquerading as science). People, there is a reason that show is on the Science Fiction channel, err ... SyFy. Whatever.

The "paranormal" thing is a fuzzy issue, because how does one define it? Any phenomenon that can somehow be proven scientifically is, by definition, no longer paranormal. So, I guess, as Skeptics, what we're saying is that everything in the universe is what it is, and that there cannot be anything "outside" what is. We're anti-meta, in other words. If, for example, there are ghosts, there must be some way to prove it. Of course, the Ghost Hunter guys (not to pick on them, but they're an easy, illustrative target) must think this, too, or they wouldn't be (mis)using all this scientific gear. And then there are the John Edward types who are simply cold-readers. (And he's not even a very good one ... he cheats.)

Extra-terrestrials are a tough issue. In a universe the size of the one we inhabit, what are the chances that life only arose on only one world? The chances are (pun intended) astronomical that there is life somewhere else out there. But , then, if life DOES spark somewhere else, what are the chances that it will develop the technology to travel between the stars? (Ok ... I'm firmly in Drake Equation territory now.) Ultimately, we just don't know, and there hasn't been enough solid scientific evidence to prove there is life anywhere else. Most UFO sightings or abduction stories have terrestrial explanations. And if not, well ... just because we aren't sure what the reason for something is doesn't mean we can jump to the conclusion that it must be caused by aliens ... or gods, or goblins, or whatever.

Cryptozoology is a similar field. Where is the solid evidence of these creatures? Where's all the sasquatch crap? Where are the washed-up bodies of lake monsters? Absence of proof doesn't mean none of these things could be real. But, again, there's no solid evidence, and so the natural skeptical view is to disbelieve until more evidence is gathered.

Medical nonsense tops the list in terms of potentially most dangerous beliefs. Everything from homeopathic remedies to avoiding vaccination can be perfectly harmless. But they can also have deadly consequences in the wrong circumstances.

Conspiracy theories are an interesting subject, because they're so diverse in nature. Many of them seem reasonable at first glance. But many of them seem downright crazy. And many of them involve the other topics on this list ... Ghosts, Psychics, Aliens, Bigfoot, Big Pharma and the Secret Liberal (or Conservative) Shadow Government are all working together to read your mind, and post all of your thoughts on the internets! Or force you to get shots that will make you want to buy products from Apple (or Microsoft)!! Or fatten you up to feed you to alien babies!!!11!! !!1!!!


What I find most fascinating about all of these is that most proponents of these beliefs seem to want to believe them so badly. As a result, their objectivity seems compromised. Not that anyone can ever be truly objective ... we all have our biases. That's exactly why the scientific method is so important. It at least attempts to marginalize these biases. (But, that's a topic for a whole other discussion!)

In the next part, I'll re-examine some of these same areas, and tell you where I think a Dogmatically Skeptical take on everything may be almost as bad ... maybe even as unscientific ... as the believers' outlook.

Thoughts on "Dogmatic" Skepticism (Part 1)

Something I often hear from "Believers" is that atheism is just like a religion. Usually, this argument is put forward in order to illustrate a claim that we non-believers or Skeptics (or whatever) are no more open-minded than they are.

These same people often accuse us non-believers of following some unstated agenda, and claim that our minds are made up in advance of our consideration of evidence. In other words, they're accusing us of dogmatic thinking. (Which is one of the hallmarks of organized religion.)

I've always been rather dismissive of this accusation - never really giving it much serious thought*. I personally don't belong to any group that tells me what to think. We skeptics are a pretty much unorganized bunch. I mean, sure there are a few organized groups out there, like the Center for Inquiry, or American Atheists - some more "out there" than others. Members of these groups tend to have similar modes of thought**, else they wouldn't have joined together. But that's much different from a religion, where most people are either born into it, or converted into it by friends or family - and where, once one is involved, the organization then tells one what their doctrines are, and which tenets of their faith are most important to believe.

Obviously, in order to be classified as an atheist, one must profess a disbelief in a god. By definition, an agnostic has doubts or reservations about the existence of such a being. But outside of that, anything goes? Right? There certainly aren't any dogmatic tenets of belief set forth for atheism or skepticism.

Or are there?

I've been wondering about that ... mulling the question over in my mind ...

I think for the categories of "atheist" and "agnostic," this is true. The definitions of these terms are relatively straightforward, though there's probably some grey area between them. But the term "skeptic" is a bit different from those.

The term "skeptic," as it's being used within the "Skeptical Movement†" seems, to me, to be a bit fuzzy - and that's where part of the problem lies. I mean, a lot of people have been skeptical about many things. Fundamentalist Christians are often skeptical about the Theory of Evolution. Some on the political Right are skeptical about the circumstances of President Obama's birth. There have been many who are skeptical about the Apollo landings, or whether the Earth is spherical in shape. ††

Those people are all lower-case "s" skeptics. But, I don't think any of those people fit in with what most of us consider to be (capital "S") Skeptics.

What we're currently calling the "Skeptical Movement", then, must have some notable features beyond the simple definition of skepticism. Else, why refer to it as a "Movement" at all, and not just refer to it as a simple stance as it relates to any particular topic or phenomenon?

It seems to me that there is a sort of loosely-affiliated group of beliefs, or maybe hypotheses that are beginning to to coalesce into a sort of "dogma" of Skepticism. This concerns me.

I'll relate why I think this, and what my concerns are in Part 2.

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Footnotes:

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

* A reaction which cedes their point to some extent, I suppose. (Hence this post.)

** Even those groups, though, encompass people with many different beliefs. CfI, for example, includes people who are politically or socially conservative, liberal, libertarian, what have you. Members & supporters run the economic and philosophical gamut from socialist to laissez-faire capitalist. Some consider themselves agnostics or atheists, others prefer the term Humanist, or unchurched. Some may even believe in a nebulous "greater power" or "first principle" of some sort, but not in organized religion. There are even those who may identify themselves "culturally" with a particular religious tradition.

† It should be noted that while there are organized groups within what could be termed a "Skeptical Movement," there really is no organized movement, as such. What most people refer to as the modern Skeptical Movement is really just an organic growth in the number of people and organizations that are identifying themselves as "Skeptical" in a more public way than in the past.

†† It should also be noted that these particular skeptical views are held despite the overwhelming evidence, which leads to a whole other topic. There are plenty of other places where this subject is addressed - often by real experts in their fields - and there's probably not much I can add:

Pharyngula

Obama's Birth

Bad Astronomy

Skeptics Society

Skepticality