No Fraud, No God – Drinking Skeptically

In February 2009, I organized Harrisburg’s outlet for Drinking Skeptically – a casual, social meetup for those who value science and critical thinking. Drinking Skeptically has meetups all over the country (including Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) with the numbers growing every month. Originally begun in the UK as Skeptics in the Pub, it served as a new way to get like-minded individuals together in a comfortable setting. It’s been a great success as part of what I view as a growing skeptical movement.

There is plenty of overlapping territory between skepticism and atheism. Several PA Nonbelievers members attend Drinking Skeptically – Harrisburg.

PAN members are skeptical of not only god(s) but also spirits, angels, faith healing, miracles and special creation/intelligent design. We reject the religious claims that a “sky father” affects us humans partially because no good evidence has been presented for this while considerable evidence exists to support reasonable, alternative explanations for nature. Skepticism is a method by which we can look for confirming or disconfirming evidence in other aspects of life.

I’ve been a skeptic since about age 20 when my science-prone mind, curiosity about the truth and intellectual influences poked gaping holes in the validity of claims about ghosts, Bigfoot, UFOs and lake monsters. Ultimately, this epiphany led me to discard organized religion altogether. I’m now a secular humanist – agnostic.

Skepticism and non-theism are closely aligned but not mutually inclusive. There are nontheistic people who believe in an inordinate amount of new age goofiness. And, there are great scientists and skeptics who are people of faith. Harry Houdini is an example of someone who exemplified one who can be against fraud without being against God. He was a masterful debunker of psychics and spiritualist mediums while remaining respectful of his Jewish heritage.

I would be glad to ‘drink skeptically’ with other skeptics who accept religion. I think we all should be open to this for several reasons: Not all religious people are irrational – many are downright moderate and value science. We shouldn’t exclude via stereotype since we don’t like it when people do that to us. Exchange of ideas is good for everyone. Most importantly, we need allies to fight against teaching nonsense in schools, fraudulent health therapies, scams and magical thinking. If people wish to compartmentalize their faith in a separate area of the brain than the one that criticizes astrology, alien abductions and homeopathy, we can stand on some common ground. So, when you join us for Drinking Skeptically, don’t assume the entire group is of nonbelievers. It may be a diverse crowd in attendance enjoying some common doubt.

To pass on ideas or to get info on Drinking Skeptically events email idoubtit00(at)gmail.com (those are double zeros in the address) or visit the Facebook page for Drinking Skeptically – Harrisburg.

*This was originally published on the PA Nonbelievers blog and in PANViews.

Scholarly Saturday night: Singing ’bout Darwin

Last night was the Concert for Darwin – a special event presented by Jefferson Pepper, Lauri Lebo and folks from the Central PA ACLU. PA Nonbelievers helped with ticket sales. It was held at the incredible Midtown Scholar bookstore in Harrisburg. It was quite amazing that such an intelligent and unique event took place inside a new venue for a successful, independent bookstore. If you ever pass through downtown Harrisburg, you will notice blight, crime, garbage and poverty. Yet, in midtown, around the Broad Street Market, there is occuring a revitalization. Thanks to the Harrisburg Community College’s downtown campus and other investments, this place is shaping up. I’ll be visiting the bookstore again and again for books (of course) and what will certainly be more outstanding events such as this.

It would be hard to top this. Lauri Lebo was jumping around, getting stuff ready, saying ‘hi’ and signing autographs of her book. She began the night by introducing a very special guest, Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Genie is a hero to so many of us. I was so, so pleased to meet her and have her back in Harrisburg for such a positive event. Genie played a pivotal role in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. Many of the plantiffs, including some of the kids, were in the audience this evening. Smiles were all around.

Lauri then introduced Jefferson Pepper who played solo and with his band folk and americana tunes that expressed the raw feelings many in the audience had about the state of American culture. I DO NOT like country music but the lyrics and themes felt very personal to me. Plus, I’m partial to a fiddle (being a violin player a while ago). The sound was excellent and I enjoyed every minute. Find out more about Jeff’s music here.

Next, was the remarkable and unmatched Dr. Ken Miller. I’ve seen him speak before and would so love to have him as a teacher. Well, he is a teacher every time I listen to him. Dr. Miller sat in the front row to watch the incomparable Baba Brinkman – evolutionary rapper. I have never heard anything like this. I only wish I had such an exceptional grasp of language and rhyme. I was blown away.

If you missed it, YOU MISSED SOMETHING. I think everyone had an outstanding time. We should all do this more often.

Creationism – Sham Inquiry

There has been a concerted effort to package creationist views in such a way as to sound so convincing and correct (at least politically) in order to gain public support and demonize evolution.

In the 20th century, special creation, as an explanation of all life on earth, was so obviously nonscientific that it ended up as a problem in the modern education system. As religion, it was prohibited from being taught in public schools. Evolution, developed from Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection in 1849, was the clearly acceptable scientific explanation to be included in the school curriculum. Scientific creationism was developed as an alternate view in the post-Sputnik science atmosphere of the 1960s [1]. “Scientific” was added as a credibility bauble. It was simply tacked on the front and various science-like trappings were added.

The method utilized in creationist arguments is to pick apart the scientific evidence, looking for anomalies or observations that cast doubt on the concept of evolution. Creationists excel at simplifying and mischaracterizing science into straw man arguments, then shooting them down with a self-righteous chuckle. Their philosophy is peppered with “bits of science, variously chopped, twisted, crushed, mangled and blended” [2] aimed at the average population who does not know enough about the scientific process and standards and who never learned enough about the basics of biology in high school. Creationists use scientific principles (like thermodynamics) as far as it will take them for the purposes of their arguments. The explanations will not extend too far in case it could be revealed how inappropriate they are [3].

The premise of creationism is miraculous and outside the bounds of natural law and human understanding [4]. It is a stellar example of a nonfalsifiable theory. There is no coherent creation theory or that of its modern version, “intelligent design”. The philosophy is invoked when it is convenient – when a biologic process appears to be lacking an evolutionary explanation. Corollary theories, such as flood geology, are soundly at odds with modern knowledge. There is no research, no testable hypotheses, but they will staunchly say that there is [5].

Creationists practice dismissals of accepted scientific evidence such as geologic time, genetics, developmental biology and the fossil record. A particularly infuriating ploy (committing the logical fallacy called “moving the goalposts”) is the standard response to finding a transitional fossil that fills in an evolutionary gap. They conclude it did not actually fill a gap, it created two more gaps. There are never enough transitional fossils to convince [6]. The argument of personal incredulity is committed because they just can not imagine that some things can be so. It does not fit with their preconceived notion and is rejected. Actually, creationism literature provides excellent examples of many other logical fallacies including arguments from authority, non sequiturs, ad hominem, inconsistency and probably several others.

Creationists like to debate scientists. It appears to put them on equal footing. It is difficult to argue with an ardent creationist. There is no logic. Logic and reason are anathema to religion and therefore are not respected in the creationist court. Yet, they will fervently use terms like “truth” and “facts” and “common sense”. They will use arguments that are decidedly unscientific and illogical, but still sound very convincing to an unwary audience.

While trying very hard to look like science, apologists will claim that evolution is not science but a “belief” and dogma, styling evolution as a religion, calling evolutionists intolerant, pompous, arrogant, deceitful, engaging in indoctrination, elitist and afraid [7]. Clearly, they attempt to dilute science and blur distinction in the eyes of the public. They will latch onto and publicize disputes among scientists [8]. In this way, they manufacture a controversy in science where there simply is none.

Without any solid claims originating from their own position, all that the creationist side can do is attack. They are experts of “conjuring tricks employing inaccuracy, misrepresentation, dazzling numbers and layers of confusion” [9] In this vein, they will style evolution as a religion, calling evolutionists intolerant, pompous, arrogant, deceitful, engaging in indoctrination, elitist and afraid [10].

No evidence is required, or desired, beyond that of the Bible. There is no respect for science, its methods or principles. The conclusion precedes everything. It is not a search for knowledge, it is a story to support a religion where revealed knowledge is seen as truth and will not be forsaken. Creationist motives are blatantly obvious. They wish to show evolution is false in support of a supernatural creator. Creationists have been wildly successful in convincing the public that a supernatural view is reasonable and legitimate, even if they have not convinced them with a lame scientific argument. The ideological argument is harder to reject.

For these reasons, creationists are science pretenders of the worst kind.

References

(2005). “Kitzmiller vs Dover”, US District Court For The Middle District Of Pennsylvania.

Godfrey, L. R. (1981). “Science and Evolution in the Public Eye”. Paranormal Borderlands of Science. K. Frazier, Prometheus Books.

Issak, M. (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook, Univ of Calif. Press.

Kitcher, P. (1982). Abusing Science-The Case Against Creationism, MIT Press.

Popper, K. (1963). “Falsificationism”. Scientific Inquiry (1999). R. Klee, Oxford Univ Press.

Scott, E. C. (1995). “Creationism, Ideology, and Science”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences.

Toumey, C. (1996). Conjuring Science, Rutgers Univ Press.
———–

[1] Scott, p. 508
[2] Kitcher, p. 82
[3] Ibid., p. 91-96
[4] Scott, p. 514
[5] See the Institution for Creation Research website at http://www.icr.org/evidence/ where it will take you several clicks to get to any content, none of which can be considered “evidence” of any sort.
[6] Isaak, p. 113-125.
[7] Toumey, p. 125-6.
[8] Kitcher, p. 55.
[9] Ibid., p. 120.
[10] Toumey, p. 125-6.

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

Pretend science

Playing Pretend Science

In order to be technical, like science, pseudoscientists engage in a method of data gathering that is not haphazard or lazy. Intricate collection and analysis is often a part of pseudoscientific activity. They may produce enormous bodies of work. Commitment to a cause can prompt “energetic intellectual effort” [1]. The motives and ’sciencey’ feel of the whole endeavor wins over those nonscientists who can’t recognize that it simply fails to meet scientific standards. Yet, for all the diligent work, the accumulated evidence can still amount to nothing of substance.
The public is happy to admire science as long as they don’t have to understand it deeply. Sham inquiry plays to the admiration of science by the public. A lack of familiarity with how science is supposed to work is a major reason why the public has trouble recognizing counterfeit science. Add an ‘-ology’ to the end of whatever you study and it acts like a toupe of credibility – to hide the lack of substance. The public is vulnerable to pseudoscience that resembles real inquiry and genuine knowledge.
The following are three examples of current pseudosciences. They all don the accoutrements of science without delivering the substance [2]. The field of cryptozoology is the likeliest of the three to hold the interest of real scientists these days because it is associated with the genuine fields of zoology, anthropology and wildlife biology and chock-full of amateur scientists. Ghost hunting is predominantly nonscientists who enjoy using technology and the new view that it gives them on the world. Creationism is a entirely different beast grown completely from religious ideology and dressed in a cheap and transparent scientific costume. This sham does not even fool courts of law but it continues to exert tremendous ideological force on the public.

Cryptozoology
Ghost hunting
Creationism
——————-
[1] Haack, S. (1995). “Concern for Truth and Why it Matters”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences, p. 58.
[2] Bunge, M. (1995).“In Praise of Tolerance To Charlatanism in Academia”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences, p. 104.

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

Irrefutable

Science doesn’t work by beginning with the premise and searching for evidence to support it or, holding onto the premise no matter what evidence contradicts it. This is true close-mindedness.

A theory can be worded in such a way that it can never be shown to be false. This is made very easy by incorporating the supernatural. For example, “God did it”. How might one prove otherwise when the God or creator can suspend natural law indiscriminately?

Sham inquiry researchers will play down the importance of certain evidence and explain it away and ignore or rationalize failure. They will refuse to critically examine their logic. Instead, they resort frequently to special pleading. The fallacy of special pleading is when someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon some characteristic that does not really warrant that an exception be made [1]. It’s an excuse. Using ad hoc explanations to explain away disconfirming evidence is a means to ensure that no conceivable piece of evidence produced will effect the outcome. The theory is nonfalsifiable.

Another fail-safe option to protect your theory against refutation is to place the burden of proof on the skeptic, which does not make logical sense. When this tool is used in an argument, one can conclude that rules of logic and fair play have been thrown out.

When a proponent asserts absolute certainty in their interpretation, and will not provide a reasonable answer to “What evidence would make your theory false?” (or worse, requires the scientist to “Prove me wrong”) it is a clear signal of pseudoscience. Intellectual honesty would require one to admit that any theory may eventually someday be proven false but can never be proven absolutely true.

————-
[1] Carey, S. S. (2004). A Beginner’s Guide to Scientific Method, Wadsworth. p. 19

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

Outrage about Religious History Week

I am UNHAPPY in a big way. How dare Congress propose such a huge bag of nonsense!

“Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation’s founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as `American Religious History Week’ for the appreciation of and education on America’s history of religious faith.”

First, what follows in the resolution would be false. America was founded for the people, by the people. Not for God, by God. Second, what is Congress doing blatently crossing the line by endorsing a specific religion? Third, why doesn’t Congress work on something constructive and important for a change!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-888

This is bad, really bad. For everyone. There is no good outcome if the U.S. continues down the road to becoming a Christian theocracy. We’ve been well on our way with Bush. Huckabee would be his worthy successor. No matter what religion you are or if you are no religion, you must speak out against this. Please contact your representative and object to the distortion. If the government endorses a religion, that is one giant step away from freedom for all. We must remain tolerant of all belief systems, life styles and viewpoints. Anything else is un-American.

Do not rely on politicians to recite U.S. history. They distort and lie on this topic just like they do about most else.

Visit here for what you can do.

Sad state here and abroad

I felt very sad when hearing of the death of Benazir Bhutto. I admired her extreme courage and determination, her vision and her cause. The world has lost a powerful leader who happened to be a woman.

I’m sad on many fronts these days, nearing the end of this year. I have a completely illogical aversion to odd numbers and 2007 did not bode well from the start. I still fear for the coming year with the election and disgusting hype that comes along with it.

These days, I’m as certain as a scientist could reasonably feel “certain” that history will remember the Bush – The Sequel years as the darkest time of U.S. politics. We’ve lost so much, including our way.

I long for a day when religion won’t play a part in politics. I’m terrified at the thought that we might continue on the road to Christian facsism. In 2008, I wish for freedom and tolerance around the world. I wish I could do more than wish about it. I contacted my Congresspersons many times but they seem to be deaf, dumb and blind. It makes me very worried. We’ve let the executives of politics and business lead us far off the best path and the sheeple followed without thought, cheering.

So, 2007 ends with sadness about the state of the country and the whole world. There is some hope: I am glad to see greater acceptance of environmental consciousness and of atheism. It’s a good thing we change the calendar at some arbitrary marker so we can at least get just some sense, however contrived, that there is a chance to regroup and move forward.

Jamie Lynn Provides Parents an Opportunity

Jamie Lynn Spears’ pregnancy provides parents of girls between 7 and 14 with a golden opportunity to talk about birth control. Just do it. It’s easy. It’s absolutely necessary.

Abstinence isn’t going to cut it. That’s actually been proven. Let’s face it – kids that are too young still have sex. If you are a wise and caring parent, you encourage them to be smart about relationships but you also teach them about birth control so they don’t derail their lives with a child before its time.  The young girls in poor neighborhoods don’t have the resources that the Spears’ have to care for a child (though I would question celebrity parental skills). A 16 year girl living in relative poverty may not be able to graduate and establish her independence with a child in tow. It’s very sad. She may become a burden to society instead of an asset.

Just to add, I’ll highlight the complete disregard that the fundamentalist religionists have for the life of these young women. Nothing is so telling about the health and prosperity of a society than the status of its women. If it were left up to the fundamentalists (of all religions) women would be relegated solely to the role of broodmares, subservient to their husbands. Their religious texts support this view. I deeply resent that. Ask your Presidential candidates ‘what is the role of a woman in society?’. Their answers may be very telling.

Flying Spaghetti Gift Monster

This would be my Holiday Greetings card if I decided to send one out. It would totally confound everyone I know. But, that would be funny.

Happy Holidays to all, no exceptions.

I’d like to remind everyone that a mid-winter holiday was celebrated long before Jesus. It’s sad that some feel they have a right to hijack a perfectly good time to gather family together, eat and reconnect (or at least attempt to do so) by being prejudiced and self-righteous about those that don’t share their exact belief system. It reminds me of the stories about war time officers frowning upon enemy combatants holding a truce over Christmas Eve. They thought that was bad strategy because the soldiers might actually realize the so-called enemy was also real person, just like him, more alike than different.

I admit that I can not comprehend why a person would want to have one solid, unshakable belief about the world and their place in it if it meant demonizing everyone else. It’s no different than being racist. If I could design a holiday display for the center of town, it would have a menorah, a manger, a Yule log, a bottle of Coca-Cola, and a symbol representing every other cultural, natural or pagan symbol of the season. Something for everyone and anyone.

Christmas as a general holiday has survived and flourished because it has changed with the times. It has become a secular holiday because we all don’t like being burdened with religious connotations in order to have a happy time. It’s such a good time that various folk (of various religious backgrounds) celebrate it in some way. If you want to be Puritanical about it, go ahead and have your holy day. Puritans didn’t celebrate it at all.

What’s the Reason for the Season

How’s your holiday season going so far? Gee, it’s only the first week in December. Since I noticed decorations on display at the craft store when I was looking for Halloween paraphernalia, it feels like December 25 should be, like, next week. But it’s the next FOUR weeks, actually.

I’m not a big fan of Christmas. First, my family does not celebrate any religious aspect of this time of year (or any time of year). So, I don’t warm up to people preaching “Jesus is the Reason for the Season”. Nice rhyme but the tilt of the earth’s axis is the reason for the seasons. Too bad that doesn’t sound as catchy. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it any less true.

Holiday time is frequently a trigger for bad memories: people miss lost loved ones, they remember disappointments or tragedies, or they sadly realize that they can’t share any joy with someone because they are alone. It’s highly insensitive to push a happy, joyful message to these folks and call them Scrooges or Grinches when they fail to join the festivities.

Xmas time for me is full of anxiety. With divorced parents on my side and various relatives spread out in the state, I worry about getting in the required visitations. I have to cart along two small children and a dog. They don’t. I have to work pretty hard to figure out appropriate gifts for those who have what they need. They don’t. When in doubt, they just hand out cash. They can send out cards and greetings. I don’t have time.

This year, I’m quite the “Grinch”. I don’t have any enthusiasm for putting up the tree. I don’t feel motivated to light up the house or festoon the interior. I might make cookies this year because the kids like that and they make thoughtful gifts. But, generally, I do not embrace the consumer excess and overexertion that goes with the holiday preparation.

I heard that among the common toy requests in children’s letters to Santa are the wishes for parents to come home from Iraq or Afghanistan, for everyone to get along (at home and in the world), and for snow to fall. How simple are those wishes. I wish the same. I want all those soldiers home from a senseless war. I want us to stop fighting abroad and at home about faith and what it means to be a good person. I wouldn’t mind a dusting of snow to make everything clean, quiet and a pretty background for the twinkling lights.