Tag Archives: skepticism

You are not prepared!

I should have taken Illidan‘s wise words to heart.

As others have also expressed to me, Holocaust denial seems like a particularly evil form of pseudohistory. The belief is inextricably linked to a rather violent form of anti-Semitism, in thought if not in deed. People who deny the Holocaust are keeping Hitler’s dream alive by attempting to erase the genocide of European Jewry.

I have read a lot about Holocaust denial in skeptical publications, published on paper or online. In the ’90s I followed David Irving’s libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, who had rightfully called him out for his denialism and his bigotry. (And I was extremely pleased when he lost that case, and later declared bankruptcy due to the fines levied against him.) I was made to ponder a couple of Jewish people who denied the Holocaust, which reminded me of the Israeli Orthodox Jew who assassinated prime minister Yitzhak Rabin — something that I did and do still find very disturbing.

I believed I was prepared, knowing these people existed and having read all the suggested rebuttals, although I think trying to reason with Holocaust deniers is like atheists trying to change the minds of believers: generally a waste of time.

Then recently I looked at a Facebook photo album posted by someone I know barely at all. It was a very moving set of images from a visit to one of the Nazis’ most infamous death camps. I went to the comments to add my kudos, and found I had interrupted an argument between a rational commenter and an anti-choice radical who had gone into a comparison between abortion and the Holocaust. I stopped reading the guy and simply blocked him, but another commenter stopped me cold:

The Holocaust is a lie.

Skeptics always seem to joke, sometimes darkly, about issues like these, so before I jumped to a conclusion, I neutrally queried the “Pastor” (which was part of his name) about his meaning.

I had a shockingly visceral reaction to the answer. It began with my name, and then there was a very cogently written response including mentions of the Zionist media, that Hollywood created the Holocaust, and other things you’d expect from a student of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And I just froze, with my body going into fight-or-flight mode. There was a lump in my stomach, my hands were sweating, and my heart was racing.

It may not have been an in-person exchange, but it felt personal nonetheless. Very personal. My mind flashed through the stories my grandmother told about our family that often included the aside  “(he died in the death camps).” I remembered interpreting a tour through a memorial museum for a group of deaf students, and how it felt having to remain professionally unfazed. I thought about the mountains of evidence I could have presented to this guy, personal stories, statistics, photos, everything.

Berlin's Holocaust memorial

And I walked away. I replied I’d be blocking him (not reporting, just a personal block), and then did so. I’ve walked away from many a brewing argument about a huge and/or emotional topic, having learned the technique from listening to my father’s views on many subjects on which we strongly disagree. He trolled me before I even knew what trolling was, and now being crippled by a lack of energy, I’m frequently walking away from discussions or arguments that I know will be fruitless and cost me energy that I can’t spare. And since the opening salvo had already awakened my animal brain, I recognized that I should and could not go further without descending into a really ugly situation.

But with this guy, it felt like I was caving. I don’t consider myself any kind of authority on Judaism, but I know enough from my upbringing and further study in college, as well as having an emotional connection to the Sunday Hebrew schools and seders and High Holy Days of my childhood, as well as the secular aspects of the culture that I loved. It seemed somehow that I should have held up the standard and challenged the pastor calmly and rationally in defense of it all. And I failed at that, even though it was the right thing for me to do.

Skeptics have their different areas of interest or specialty. Many people consider this or that person or practice to be pure evil, like homeopaths who let babies die from treatable illnesses, or the antivax crowd, or the people who are blocking the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Everyone has a different view and experience of evil. But it turns out that for me, skepticism — which is a solid way of viewing the world and can be a shield against the ignorance and hatred — was no protection at all against the feeling that I was being spoken to by an evil man.

Someone in this comment thread opined that the abortion loonie and the pastor were both attempting humor, or “being a Poe” we might say. I don’t have any evidence, because I didn’t seek it, as to whether he was acquainted with the posters. I did see the pastor’s profile when I went to block him; at first glance it did not resemble a Poe to me at all, but I admit I didn’t read it thoroughly enough to confirm it. But as I thought about that, I realized it didn’t matter. Whether a true denier or a perfect parrot of one, the sentiments aimed at me hit home like nothing I’ve yet experienced since becoming involved with skepticism. It didn’t matter whether the person were serious or joking, because even if it was a joke, the words displayed the exact same sentiments as those who believe.

I don’t have a moral to this story, because I’m not going to presume something like “all skeptics should watch out for blah, blah, blah.” For all I know, you reading this post are able to counter all opposing, even offensive opinions with perfect calm, and more power to you if so.

It was a lesson to me, one I haven’t entirely figured out yet, about being prepared to be unprepared in the face of something I thought I could handle. About the uselessness of skepticism at moments like these. And about how scarily close I believe I could come to turning into one of those loonies, just by engaging with them.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Seizing the day

The other day I was watching a Nova episode called “What Darwin Never Knew,” about how modern science is helping us to better understand the process of evolution. My mind wandered a bit as I thought about finch beaks and gene sequencing, when a comment suddenly brought me back to the TV: a reminder that On the Origin of Species is only 150 years old.

When I think about evolution, I think in terms of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions of years — staggering numbers. I think about fossils and living fossils, like the vampire squid, and I’m overtaken by how utterly amazing the whole thing is. But focusing for a moment on the age of the theory itself, it’s staggering in another direction to consider just how long religion has been part of human history — thousands, even tens of thousands of years.

It’s said that if you look at the age of the Earth in terms of a 24-hour day, modern humans have been here for only a scant few seconds or minutes of that day. Similarly, the theory of evolution takes up a tiny slice of religion’s “day.” How far it’s come in that amount of time, and how much further it needs to go!

For most secularists (I assume there are exceptions), evolution is a fact as solid as the combination of sodium and chloride producing table salt. But it’s also a fact now for many religious people, displacing the belief in divine creation they would have held just a century and a half ago, about as long as the saxophone has been around. This, even though it’s not nearly enough yet, is a triumph of science.

A month before I was born, an evolutionary biologist — a winner of the National Medal of Science and a Russian Orthodox Christian — published an essay, the title of which is frequently quoted as an example of how evolution and religion can coexist. His name was Theodosius Dobzhansky, and the essay is “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” It’s beautiful how the light of God, even for a believer, is not what illuminates the features of our world, but rather evolution.

I haven’t studied evolution formally or extensively, so all of this may seem derivative and/or painfully self-obvious. (To the former, I assure you I haven’t been cribbing from anyone, and the latter ought to prove it.) These are just my layperson’s thoughts swirling around election time, when the issue of who is going to educate our kids is paramount, especially given the purely incredible finding that the U.S. comes next to last in its acceptance of evolution, according to a 2005 survey of 34 countries. With the perspective of the religious “day,” though, it makes a little more sense that we aren’t further along than we are, and even seem to be backsliding at times.

A lot of people are doing a lot of work trying to encourage scientific and rational thought, and furthering the acceptance of evolution. Sometimes it seems that all the work is only chipping away at the enormous edifice of religion and creationism. But it’s the very enormity of that edifice that illustrates the success evolution has had in changing fundamental principles about how we view the world.

Maybe biologists and other proponents of evolution need more patience. I’m not saying, by any means, that we should become complacent or stop doing all that work. I believe another Enlightenment is possible, in which evolution and other principles of science win out over myth and superstition again. I don’t believe, though, that we’ll see the changes we want to see in our lifetimes, or in the next few generations — or even in the next few centuries.

So maybe it is faith that we need, faith in the process of evolution as well as the theory. Evolution is clearly the “fittest” explanation of creation on our planet, and I do have faith that one day, someday, it will survive and triumph over its opponents. It’s just going to take more than a moment of religion’s time to happen.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

The Center for Inquiry, divided against itself

The Center for Inquiry is a longstanding organization that does a ton of excellent work in promoting a secular, humanist society. Based in Amherst, NY, it has branches in many other cities across the U.S., including here in Los Angeles. Many skeptics and most atheists I know respect and support the CFI, but things have been changing.

The New York Times recently published an article about CFI founder Paul Kurtz, whose hiring of Robert Lindsay as chief executive proved extremely divisive. The story describes a split between Kurtz’s preference for a gentle brand of humanism and Lindsay’s “angry atheism” — Kurtz’s words, denied by Lindsay and CFI employees. The split, along with other concerns, caused Kurtz to be voted out as chairman, and his later resignation from the board.

I know some of these employees, either from actually having met them or communicated over Facebook. And certainly, they are not all angry atheists, nor has CFI morphed into some kind of robotic uber-Dawkins, equipped with anti-secularist radar and lasers to eliminate the targets. It’s important to remember, too, that there are many branches and departments run by a variety of people.

But there have been some CFI-related incidents that have made me start to waver in my full support. The first was a statement about Park51, including comments by Lindsay, that sent waves of surprise over the skeptical/atheist community. The statement is no longer available to read in full, but Orac at Respectful Insolence gave a detailed (and opinionated) take on it. The controversy this statement engendered can be read in this comments of this post. Quickly, the original statement was replaced by another, clarifying CFI’s position that they oppose the building of any new houses of worship. It’s noted that “This statement supersedes any prior statement issued by CFI regarding the Ground Zero controversy.” This incident seemed like a very public example of the clashing ideologies within the organization.

CFI has a program called CFI On Campus, whose website includes blog posts written by various people. JT Eberhard, founder of Skepticon (about more which later), wrote a post that included statements like

It’s the 21st century and yet the leader of the free world, in order to ingratiate himself with the common man, must profess to believe that not only did a Jew rise from the dead 2,000 years ago, but that he is in communion with that Jew.

and

And rather than make people shudder that the president believes he can kneel in the oval office and run his policy through that 2,000 year-old Jew (and presumably get a cosmic thumbs-up regardless of the policy), it will actually make most people like him more.

The use of the word “Jew” here was pointed out in a Facebook post, and after reading the blog, I was somewhat annoyed, as you can see in the first comment. Coincidentally I had recently had several conversations about whether and why the term “Jew” is seen as pejorative, as compared with “Jewish.” Here I was at a loss to understand why the term was used with such disdain; “guy” would have been a perfectly good choice. What really made a negative impact, and drove me from the discussion, were all the comments taking a smarmy position that there was nothing even potentially offensive about it, proving their authors both closed-minded to their critics and ignorant of history. I realize JT Eberhard is not an official spokesperson for CFI’s policies. But their name is still at the top of that post.

And this year’s Skepticon, organized by Eberhard and sponsored by CFI, has a remarkably weird line-up of speakers and panels. Among respected speakers discussing questions about skepticism and atheism, there are talks called “Are Christians Delusional?” and, by Eberhard, “The Twelve Basic Arguments for God and Why They Suck.” I’m just going to assume the answer to the first question is “yes,” and the second title is simply childish, especially given the company it’s in.

I’m aware that many smaller, grassroots skeptical groups have developed rifts over their focus changing to atheism. The two do overlap significantly, though not totally, and Skepticon isn’t necessarily wrong to appeal to those skeptics who are also interested in discussions about atheism. But do they have to be smug and arrogant about it? I’m pretty sure Christian skeptics might be interested in the panel about whether skepticism leads to atheism, especially as moderated by Julia Galef. But will they want to go to ones that insult them in the very titles? Does atheism really need to be a bully to religious skeptics, and can we afford to run them off?

No, I don't advocate beating up Scientologists. Possible exception: Tom Cruise.

A blog post on the CFI situation by Greg Fish at weird things has made me examine again what is important to me about being an atheist. When I realized I was one, I did have a brief interest in locating others online and discussing this new part of my identity, but I quickly left the first atheist forum I found because of the constant angry invective towards anything non-secular. It so happens now that I know a lot of reasonable atheists interested in intelligent discussion, but mainly because of our shared interest in skepticism, which in the end I’d rather focus on.

Yes, I want to see religion beaten back by science and reason; yes, I want it out of our schools; yes, I believe the current Pope is a horrendous individual. There’s not much that the “radical” or “angry” atheists say that I don’t agree with. And oh just kill me now, you’re thinking, because she’s about to get into the tone discussion. And yes, that’s part of it. But it’s also about practicality. If atheists wish to convert religious skeptics, fine, but can you do that while insulting them at the same time? “Come on into the club, even though you’re too ugly to be here.” I don’t think that strategy is likely to pay off.

I know many atheists were mistreated or damaged in any number of ways by religion, and they are rightfully angry about it. They want revenge on the religious as payment. I can understand that and I’m not about to argue against it. But I don’t think that displaying that anger is beneficial to the CFI. Hurling back the same insults at the religious that they hurl at us is absolutely futile. (I’m referring to the examples I’ve provided, not characterizing CFI in general.)

Realizing I was an atheist was a joyful experience for me. My world finally made sense when I stopped trying to shoehorn various incarnations of God into it. Unfortunately, and more and more so lately, I haven’t found much joy in the work and discussion promulgated by some of my fellow atheists. My realization didn’t engender a need to lash out at those who believe; I understand that isn’t the case for many people, but I simply don’t identify with them.

The CFI is in a transitional state right now and I continue to enjoy and support their work. Despite everything I’ve said, I encourage you to look into their programs and projects. But clearly it’s not just me who is concerned about the mixed messages coming from the organization. I wish I could engage in discussion on one of their blogs without being blown off with ridiculous assertions like “You obviously wanted to be offended so I gave you what you wanted.” I want to know more about their work with humanism and secularism, without being surprised by things like the original Park51 statement. I honestly wish nothing but the best for the CFI. But I also wish there could be a consensus on which face of atheism they choose to show the world.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon