Life is about the ride, not the destination
I am always amused by this comment when it is thrown at me by some fundie with whom I am disputing. Yes, we are a narrow group, we atheists, who refuse to believe in fairy tales, magical invisible friends, virgin births, resurrections, bigfoot and the like. How dare we be so closed, so rational in our thinking. We need to open up and embrace the delusions. SOB
Re-blogged from Uncompromising Rhetoric
- Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument. (Ad hominem)
- Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack. (Straw man fallacy)
- Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. (Hasty generalization)
- Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (Begging the question)
- Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. (Post Hoc/False cause)
- Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (False dichotomy)
- Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false. (Ad ignorantum)
- Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof reversal)
- Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that” when it has no logical connection. (Non sequitur)
- Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true. (Bandwagon fallacy)
What is this New Atheism? New atheism is a type of Atheism — if we can even call it that — that is criticized for being outspoken. Furthermore, it is shunned upon by so called old Atheists for scientifically testing religion and for its anti-theistic undertone. However, new Atheism is a concoction of haughty-minded Atheists who pride themselves in near total silence and read the philosophy of Baron d’Holbach, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain and Karl Marx; just to name a few.
Didn’t these men write publications? Weren’t they as outspoken as possible when considering that some of them were at risk of persecution, censorship, or even execution? Please, do tell, were they able to rely on science? Definitely not in the manner in which we are able to rely on it. The major scientific findings that undermine what was previously regarded as religious truths came after most of these men. For instance, even after the publication of The Origin of Species, the evidence for Evolution wasn’t nearly as strong as it is today. Therefore, the only real difference between some of today’s Atheists and Atheists in the past is a reliance on science. However, one can argue that there’s no difference there either:
Science is the true theology.
Portrait of Thomas Paine by Matthew Pratt, 1785–1795 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Thomas Paine, quoted in Emerson, The Mind on Fire pg 153
There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.
Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
David Hume
How about anti-theism as defined by Oxford: opposition to the belief in the existence of a God or as some interpret it, opposition to religion?
The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.
Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.
Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.
Mark Twain
All religious notions are uniformly founded on authority; all the religions the world forbid examination, and are not disposed that men should reason upon them.
Baron d’Holbach
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
David Hume, A Treatise Of Human Nature
Note: none of these quotes specifically mention a particular religion; thus, demonstrating anti-religious views.
A reliance on science existed prior to new Atheism. Anti-theism also existed prior to new Atheism; let us ignore the fact that most old Atheists conveniently disregard the alternative definition of anti-theism: disbelief in gods. Thus, that implies that some old Atheists rely on science to some degree. Moreover, some of them also subscribe to anti-theism.
I ask again, what exactly is the difference? Let us forget the negative connotations of the label. Let us forget the air of condescension implied by individuals who call fellow Atheists ‘new’ Atheists. Thankfully, I live in a country that grants freedom of speech; therefore, I am outspoken. However, let us not forget the many around the world who hide in anonymity. Let us not forget them who are at risk of penalty and death. They harbor many of our sentiments; some are fortunate enough to express their ideas, albeit anonymously. All Atheists share a disbelief in gods. Some choose to reserve their views either because of imagined pride or the risk of penalty and death. The former has no reason to criticize the approach of another Atheist. The latter has no choice but to hide in darkness. Ultimately, there is no new Atheism. Whoever thinks there’s a such term is severely misinformed, especially when considering that the ideas they subscribe to came about via the writings of authors who held similar views to today’s ‘new’ Atheists.
Freedom From Religion Foundation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This is probably the second most popular religious fallacy and, like the God of the Gaps fallacy is accepted by very many otherwise intelligent people. Like the God of the Gaps fallacy it too is so ludicrous when spelled out that it’s astonishing that it’s even attempted, yet it crops up time and again in discussion with believers of all creeds.
by Richard Walker, Steven J. Hoekstra,
and Rodnet J. Vogl
Many skeptics take a measured amount of pleasure in the kinds of tasks often set before them: evaluating blurry photographs, conducting laboratory experiments that reduce or eliminate trickery, critiquing flawed science and pseudoscience, and countering the claims of obvious charlatans. Of course, skeptics hope that their efforts aid in advancing science education.1 In spite of these efforts, survey data from several sources suggests that paranormal belief and pseudoscientific thinking continue to be commonplace.2
Skeptics often use these findings to reinforce arguments for more science education. Their argument is based upon the largely untested assumption that increased science knowledge reduces the number of paranormal beliefs an individual holds. However, this assumption may not be valid. Andrew Ede recently argued that science education may do little to raise the level of rational thinking and may, in fact, actually deter it!3 Recent debates about including creation science and/or eliminating evolution from high school biology curricula4 are a case in point indicating that many policy makers, members of the public, and a few educators are confused about how to critique and compare theories in order to separate facts from beliefs. Ede identified three reasons why this may be true:5
The overall result is that teaching scientific “facts” is emphasized, while individuals are not given the skills with which to critically evaluate the claims that are presented to them. People are placed in the position of accepting or rejecting claims based on what they are told to believe, rather than being able to critically evaluate the evidence.6
It is possible for a student to accumulate a fairly sizable science knowledge base without learning how to properly distinguish between reputable science and pseudoscience.
A quick inspection of introductory college textbooks supports Ede’s basic arguments. As an example, most introductory psychology texts are now in excess of 500 pages, yet fewer than 15 pages are typically spent on research issues. Little or no discussion is given to the importance of evidence or how scientific methods can be used to weigh evidence. Instead, the primary emphasis of many texts is to enumerate as many scientific findings as possible. Since it is reasonable to suspect that many instructors follow the basic format of the text that has been selected for class, it is likely that class lectures spend more time on specific research findings than on the more abstract topics of empiricism and skepticism. Hence, it is possible for a student to accumulate a fairly sizable science knowledge base without learning how to properly distinguish between reputable science and pseudoscience. Fortunately, there is recently a stronger push in introductory psychology texts to correct this oversight, most strikingly by Carole Wade and Carol Tavris,7 but it still remains the exception to the rule.
The primary goal of this paper is to examine the relationship between science knowledge and paranormal beliefs. We reasoned that if Ede’s argument is true, then a person’s scientific knowledge base should be unrelated to pseudoscientific beliefs. If, on the other hand, science leads to skepticism about pseudoscience, science knowledge and paranormal beliefs should be inversely related.
We tested this relationship using survey methodology at three small undergraduate universities (Christian Brothers University, Kansas Wesleyan University, and Winston-Salem State University). Across our samples, a total of 207 students were surveyed (66 at CBU, 70 at KWU, and 71 at WSSU). While the precise wording of the questions varied somewhat across institutions, each survey contained two essential units, administered in counterbalanced order.
In one unit, students were given one or more measures of science knowledge. Efforts were made to select scales from nationally recognized tests and to include questions from many areas of science, including biology, chemistry, geology, and astronomy. At CBU and WSSU, we used randomly sampled science questions from practice test banks for the Praxis Series National Teacher’s Exam. At KWU, we used items selected from the General Social Survey and a self-constructed measure of science values.8 At least two test versions were used at each university (WSSU used four separate test versions). Sample questions from the Praxis Series National Teacher’s Exam9 included:
For each sample, we correlated the participant’s test score with their average [paranormal] belief score. Across all three samples, there was no relationship between the level of science knowledge and skepticism regarding paranormal claims.
In a second unit, students were asked to rate how much they believed in various paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. Again, efforts were made to select a cross-section of pseudoscientific claims. As skeptics, we found writing unbiased items to be a fairly difficult task, but the scale presented below, used in various forms at KWU, CBU, and WSSU, had acceptable reliability.10 Questions included:
Please rate how much you believe the following statements. Use the 7-point scale provided.
1=I do not believe in this at all; 2=I doubt very much that this is real; 3=I doubt that this is real; 4=I am unsure if this is real or not; 5=I believe this may be real; 6=I believe this is real; 7=I strongly believe this is real
After scoring this portion of the survey, we used the total number of correct responses as data for each participant. While the scores did show a fair degree of variability, the averages were generally near the midpoint (CBU M=7.42, SD=2.27, out of a possible 15; KWU M=3.52, SD=.33, on a 1 to 5 scale; WSSU M=5.8, SD = 1.96, out of a possible 10).11
Unlike previous studies that have examined specific beliefs (e.g., UFOs, ESP), we were interested in these beliefs as a whole. We wanted a single representative score for each participant. We calculated the average belief score for each participant, with higher ratings indicating greater overall belief. When looking at these scores, remember that the rating ranged from “No belief” to “Total belief.” Looking across the three samples, the average belief rating was at or below the midpoint of the scale (CBU M=1.96, SD=.76, on a 7- point scale; KWU M=2.52, SD=.58, on a 5-point scale; WSSU M=2.9, SD=.91, on a 7-point scale), although there were individuals ranging from complete skeptics to complete believers.
We were interested in whether science test scores were correlated with paranormal beliefs. For each sample, we correlated the participant’s test score with their average belief score. Across all three samples, the correlation between test scores and beliefs was non-significant (CBU r(65)=-.136, p>.05; KWU r(69)=.107, p>.05; WSSU r(70)=.031, p>.05). In other words, there was no relationship between the level of science knowledge and skepticism regarding paranormal claims.
These results are consistent with the notion that having a strong scientific knowledge base is not enough to insulate a person against irrational beliefs. Students who scored well on these tests were no more or less skeptical of pseudoscientific claims than students who scored very poorly. Apparently, the students were not able to apply their scientific knowledge to evaluate these pseudoscientific claims. We suggest that this inability stems in part from the way that science is traditionally presented to students: Students are taught what to think but not how to think.
These results need to be replicated using different materials and participants, although the diversity of measures and samples presented here suggests that there is some validity to our conclusions. While some might contend that our tests did not fully measure science knowledge, we counter this concern by emphasizing that our test questions were drawn from national tests designed to assess scientific reasoning. Thus, if there is a bias in our procedure, this bias is entrenched in science education. In our view, addressing the following questions can serve to clarify the relation between science education and pseudoscientific thinking.
First, do pseudoscientific beliefs vary by academic major? If science does discourage such beliefs, then one might suspect that science majors should view these beliefs more skeptically than perhaps religion or art majors. While there is evidence that scientists are more skeptical of claims than other individuals, it is unclear whether this skepticism is readily transferred to undergraduate science majors. After all, strange beliefs seem to be found among students of many disciplines. Unfortunately, our access to samples was too small to adequately test differences between majors.
Second, do pseudoscientific beliefs vary by education level? As students advance through college and gain experience and critical thinking skills, one might expect pseudoscientific beliefs to decrease. Although our data did not address this issue, other studies on skepticism suggest that an individual’s education level may not ward off such beliefs.12
Finally, can academic courses or programs that systematically raise or lower belief in pseudoscience be identified? It is possible that particular courses may encourage or discourage pseudoscientific beliefs. These courses need to be identified, and in the case of the latter, the key elements of these courses need to be disseminated to other science instructors. This is especially important when classroom information can support or contradict information from other sources, such as mass media. Our results suggest that we should not be overly optimistic, but more systematic investigations are needed.
Baloney Detection KitWe hope that our findings force fellow skeptics to rethink some of their assumptions. Science education, in its current form, seems to do little to offset pseudoscientific beliefs, and may in fact give students reason to accept science fiction as science fact. As skeptics and teachers, we need to do more than merely debunk extraordinary claims. While these demonstrations are informative and entertaining, they need to be coupled with thoughtful discussions of scientific reasoning. Carl Sagan suggested that good scientific reasoning demands the same type of skepticism that is needed to buy a good used car. In short, he said that students of science need a good baloney detector.13 We agree. The Skeptics Society’s recent publication of the Baloney Detection Kit that instructs teachers on how to teach just such a course is a step in the right direction.14 Provisional scientific truth must be separated clearly from myth. We urge skeptics to help students gain the necessary skills to make such distinctions both inside and outside the classroom.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We would like to thank the undergraduate research assistants who helped collect and tabulate the data on this research project: Reggie Andrews, Paul Delph, Stefanie McGee, and Lakisha Pinson. Correspondence concerning this article should be directed to W. Richard Walker, Department of Social Sciences, Winston-Salem State University, Winston-Salem, NC 27110
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time 
The Demon-Haunted World:
