A Survey on International Atheist Community

Dr. Tom Arcaro, Professor of Sociology, Elon University, US and his team are conducting an online survey on international community of atheists.  It is an exercise in understanding the community of non-believers the world over. Though it is designed to be an international survey, so far it has elicited responses mostly from US and Canada. 

Since we think it worthwhile to participate in this exercise to understand ourselves, we reproduce the letter from Prof Arcaro.

Atheist friends and colleagues,

 

I write to ask your assistance on getting the word out about a survey designed to help us better understand the world of atheists.

 

I am a sociologist at Elon University and have been researching atheists and atheism for the last five years. I have amassed a team here at Elon to support me in doing this research, and we will all be quite honored to make a modest contribution to the cause of atheism. Our main goal is to serve the atheist community.

 

What do we know about the make-up of the atheist community both here in the United States and around the world? What are the perceptions of atheists about the state of atheism-related organizations and what these entities can or should do for them? What are the perceptions of atheists about believers? What types of atheists are there? How does being an atheist impact how one navigates in the social world? What is the demographic makeup of the atheist community both in the United States and around the world? What similarities and differences are there among atheists of different genders, ages, and geographical locations?

 

Though one can find answers to these questions in various books, articles, blogs and forums, having a robust, fresh set of survey data can serve to deepen, clarify, and expand on what we already know -or assume we know- about the world of atheists. The intent of this survey is to generate such a data set and thus assist atheist-oriented organizations better to understand and serve the atheist community. All relevant data (and analysis thereof) will be made available to the leadership of appropriate atheist- oriented organizations.

 

Getting the word out about this survey is critical so that we may hear the voices of as many atheists as is possible and, ultimately, work together to make ours a world where atheists are both understood and represented.

 

The url for the survey is http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HDJ5C6L. I have also set up a web site for the survey at www.servingatheists.org that will serve as a place people can go for updates, preliminary reports on the data, and also to offer comments.

 

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

 

Dr. Tom Arcaro

Professor of Sociology

Elon University

Elon, NC 27244

Read More

The Community of Reason, a Self-Assessment and a Manifesto

Massimo Pigliucci

My experience (anecdotal, yes, but ample and varied) has been that there is quite a bit of un-reason within the Community of Reason (henceforth, CoR). This takes the form of more or less widespread belief in scientific, philosophical and political notions that don’t make much more sense than the sort of notions we — within the community — are happy to harshly criticize in others. Yes, you might object, but that’s just part of being human, pretty much every group of human beings holds to unreasonable beliefs, why are you so surprised or worried? Well, because we think of ourselves — proudly! — as a community of reason, where reason and evidence are held as the ultimate arbiters of any meaningful dispute. To find out that too often this turns out not to be the case is a little bit like discovering that moral philosophers aren’t more ethical than the average guy (true).

Massimo Pigliucci - Courtesy: Wikipedia

What am I talking about? Here is a (surely incomplete, and I’m even more sure, somewhat debatable) list of bizarre beliefs I have encountered among fellow skeptics-atheists-humanists. No, I will not name names because this is about ideas, not individuals (but heck, you know who you are...). The list, incidentally, features topics in no particular order, and it would surely be nice if a sociology student were to conduct a systematic research on this for a thesis...

• Assorted nonsense about alternative medicine. Despite excellent efforts devoted to debunking “alternative” medicine claims, some atheists especially actually endorse all sorts of nonsense about “non-Western” remedies.
• Religion is not a proper area of application for skepticism, according to some skeptics. Why on earth not? It may not be a suitable area of inquiry for science, but skepticism — in the sense of generally applied critical thinking — draws on more than just science (think philosophy, logic and math).
• Philosophy is useless armchair speculation. So is math. And logic. And all theoretical science.
• The notion of anthropogenic global warming has not been scientifically established, something loudly proclaimed by people who — to the best of my knowledge — are not atmospheric physicists and do not understand anything about the complex data analysis and modeling that goes into climate change research.
• Science can answer moral questions. No, science can inform moral questions, but moral reasoning is a form of philosophical reasoning. The is/ought divide may not be absolute, but it is there nonetheless.
• Science has established that there is no consciousness or free will (and therefore no moral responsibility). No, it hasn’t, as serious cognitive scientists freely admit. Notice that I am not talking about the possibility that science has something meaningful to say about these topics (it certainly does when it comes to consciousness, and to some extent concerning free will, if we re-conceptualize the latter as the human ability of making decisions). I am talking about the dismissal-cum-certainty attitude that so many in the CoR have so quickly arrived at, despite what can be charitably characterized as a superficial understanding of the issue.
• Determinism has been established by science. Again, wrong, not only because there are interpretations of quantum mechanics that are not deterministic, but because a good argument can be made that that is simply not the sort of thing science can establish (nor can anything else, which is why I think the most reasonable position in this case is simple agnosticism).
• Evolutionary psychology is on epistemic par with evolutionary biology. No, it isn’t, for very good and well understood reasons pertinent to the specific practical limitations of trying to figure out human selective histories. Of course, evopsych is not a pseudoscience, and it’s probably best understood as a science-informed narrative about the human condition.
• The Singularity is near! I have just devoted a full column for Skeptical Inquirer (in press) to why I think this amounts to little more than a cult for nerds. But it is a disturbingly popular cult within the CoR.
• Objectivism is (the most rational) philosophy according to a significant sub-set of skeptics and atheists (not humanists, since humanism is at complete odds with Randianism). Seriously, people? Notice that I am not talking about libertarianism here, which is a position that I find philosophically problematic and ethically worrisome, but is at least debatable. Ayn Rand’s notions, on the other hand, are an incoherent jumble of contradictions and plagiarism from actual thinkers. Get over it.
• Feminism is a form of unnecessary and oppressive liberal political correctness. Oh please, and yet, rather shockingly, I have heard this “opinion” from several fellow CoRers.
• Feminists are right by default and every attempt to question them is the result of oppressive male chauvinism (even when done by women). These are people who clearly are not up on readings in actual feminism (did you know that there have been several waves of it? With which do you best connect?).
• All religious education is child abuse, period. This is a really bizarre notion, I think. Not only does it turn 90% of the planet into child abusers, but people “thinking” (I use the term loosely) along these lines don’t seem to have considered exactly what religious education might mean (there is a huge variety of it), or — for that matter — why a secular education wouldn’t be open to the same charge, if done as indoctrination (and if it isn’t, are you really positive that there are no religious families out there who teach doubt? You’d be surprised!).
• Insulting people, including our close allies, is an acceptable and widespread form of communication with others. Notice that I am not talking about the occasional insult hurled at your opponent, since there everyone is likely a culprit from time to time (including yours truly). I am talking about engaging in apologia on behalf of a culture of insults. 

The point of this list, I hasten to say, is not that the opinions that I have expressed on these topics are necessarily correct, but rather that a good number of people in the CoR, including several leaders of the movement(s), either hold to clearly unreasonable opinions on said topics, or cannot even engage in a discussion about the opinions they do hold, dismissing any dissenting voice as crazy or irrelevant.

As you can see, the above is a heterogeneous list that includes scientific notions, philosophical concepts, and political positions. What do the elements of this list have in common, if anything? A few things, which is where I hope the discussion is going to focus (as opposed to attempting to debunk one’s pet entry, or deny that there is a problem to begin with).

A)    Anti-intellectualism. This is an attitude of lack of respect for the life of the mind and those who practice it. It may be strange to claim that members — and even some leaders — of the CoR engage in anti-intellectualism, but the evidence is overwhelming. When noted biologists or physicists in the movement dismiss an entire field of intellectual pursuit (philosophy) out of hand they are behaving in an anti-intellectual manner. When professional “skeptics” tell us that they don’t buy claims of anthropogenic global warming, they are being anti-intellectual because they are dismissing the work of thousands of qualified scientists. To be more precise here, I think there are actually two separate sub-issues at play:

A1) Scientism. This is the pernicious tendency to believe that science is the only paragon of knowledge and the ultimate arbiter of what counts as knowledge. And the best way to determine if you are perniciously inclined toward scientism is to see whether you vigorously deny its existence in the community.

A2) Anti-intellectualism proper. This is the thing on display when “skeptics” reject even scientific findings, as in the above mentioned case of global warming.

B)     The “I’m-smarter-than-thou” syndrome. Let’s admit it, skepticism does have a way to make us feel intellectually superior to others. They are the ones believing in absurd notions like UFOs, ghosts, and the like! We are on the side of science and reason. Except when we aren’t, which ought to at least give us pause and enroll in the nearest hubris-reducing ten-step program.

C)    Failure of leadership. It is hard to blame the rank and files of the CoR when they are constantly exposed to such blatant and widespread failure of leadership within their own community. Gone are, it seems, the days of the Carl Sagans, Martin Gardners, and Bertrand Russells, and welcome to the days of bloggers and twitterers spouting venom or nonsense just because they can.

Where does this leave us? Well, for one thing — at this very moment — probably with a lot of pissed off people! But once the anger subsides, perhaps we active members of the CoR can engage in some “soul” searching and see if we can improve our own culture, from the inside.

To begin with, are there positive models to look up to in this endeavor? Absolutely, and here I will name names, though the following list is grossly incomplete, both for reasons of space and because some names just happened not to come to mind at the moment I was typing these words. If you are not listed and you should be, forgive me and let’s amend the problem in the discussion thread. So here we go: Sean Carroll, Dan Dennett, Neil deGrasse Tyson, D.J. Groethe, Tim Farley, Ken Frazier (and pretty much anyone else who writes for Skeptical Inquirer, really), Ron Lindsey, Hemant Metha, Chris Mooney, Phil Plaitt, Steve Novella (as well as the other Novellas), John Rennie, Genie Scott, Michael Shermer, Carl Zimmer, and many, many more.

Do I have any practical suggestions on how to move the CoR forward, other than to pay more attention to what the people just mentioned say, and perhaps a little less attention to what is spouted by some others who shall go unmentioned? At the risk of sounding somewhat immodest, yes, I do. Here are a few to get us started (again, discussion on how to improve the list will be most welcome). Once again, the order is pretty much random:

i) Turn on moderation on all your blogs, this will raise the level of discourse immediately by several orders of magnitude, at the cost of a small inconvenience to you and your readers.

ii) Keep in mind the distinction between humor and sarcasm, leave the latter to comedians, who are supposed to be offending people. (In other words, we are not all Jon Stewarts or Tim Minchins.)

iii) Apply the principle of charity, giving the best possible interpretation of someone else’s argument before you mercilessly dismantle it. (After which, by all means, feel free to go ahead and mercilessly dismantle it.)

iv) Engage your readers and your opponents in as civil a tone as you can muster. Few people deserve to be put straight into insult mode (Hitler and Pat Robertson come to mind).

v) Treat the opinions of experts in a given domain with respect, unless your domain of expertise is reasonably close to the issue at hand. This doesn’t mean not criticizing experts or worshipping their pronouncements, but only to avoid anti-intellectualism while doing it.

vi) Read more philosophy, it will do you a world of good. (I am assuming that if you are a member of the CoR you already do read quite a bit of science. If not, why are you here?)

vii) Pick the right role models for your skeptics pantheon (suggestions above, people to avoid are left to your keen intuition).

viii) Remember what the objectives are: to learn from exposing your ideas to the cross-criticism of others and in turn help others learn to think better. Objectives do not include showing the world how right and cool you are.

ix) Keep in mind that even the very best make mistakes and occasionally endorse notions that turn out to be wrong. How is it possible that you are the only exception to this rule?

(We at www.carvaka4india.com reproduce this article by Prof Massimo Pigluicci as the points raised by the author seem to us to be relevant to Indian activists as well. Those who are following our blog may be familiar with Prof Pigluicci's writings as from the day we launched our blog, we have provided  a permanent link to his blog: 

Reproduced with the consent of  http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.in/)

Read More

Institution of Engineers Peddles Astrology to Improve Productivity!

Institution of Engineers is an august body of engineering professionals in India. It was established way back in the 1920s to cater to the educational and other professional aspirations of engineers. It is claimed to be, according to Wikipedia, “the largest multi-disciplinary engineering professional society in the English speaking world”. It obtained, in 1935, the Royal Charter of Incorporation from King George V “to promote and advance the science, practice and business of engineering”.

In today’s increasingly competitive and globalized scenario, one would expect that such a body of professionals would equip its members with the latest tools in their field by conducting intensive training programmes for their professional advancements. It being a body of highly qualified professionals with scientific and technological background, one would naturally expect that the Institution would be in the forefront of upholding one of the fundamental duties of a citizen of India as enshrined in Article 51 A (h) – Part IV A of the Constitution of India, which states that “it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop the scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform”.

Read More

....and one from the followers of Baba Ramdev!

On June 7, 2011, soon after Baba Ramdev's 'fast unto death' was disrupted by the Delhi Police, I received a similarly absurd mail as the one I mentioned in my last blog.

LOKPAL BILL : JUST A MISS CALL AWAY +912261550789

Govt. of India put a condition that 25 CRORES of people support is needed to implement 'LOKPAL-BILL'

4 this we just have to GIVE A MISSED call (free) to the number - +912261550789

After giving a missed call to this no. u'll receive a thanks msg. 

Forward this 2 as many to make India corruption free. We forward stupid messages

Let's forward something that actually matters.

I HAVE REGISTERED MY VOTE: WILL U DO THE SAME????

And don’t forget to pass on this message…………….TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS/RELATIVES / FAMILY MEMBERS / OFFICE STAFF, EMPLOYEES, ETC, ETC

 

A brief and appropriate response however immediately came from one of the recipients and I quote:

"Just to inform you that Government hasn't come up with any such conditions. We are not a country who implement policies based on public memorandum, and more over not through the means of missed calls. This is definitely a misguiding message that you would have got from someone......L

Read More

Irrationality of Anna's Camp Followers

Carvaka

One of the most distressing aspects of the ongoing anti-corruption movement in India is the absolute lack of skepticism among a significant section of the camp followers of Anna Hazare (and, is there any need to say,  among the followers of the contortionist Baba Ramdev). In their effort to get others in their bandwagon, some of them write nonsense email messages and others forward them without applying their mind.

 

These seemingly educated class of agitators who network through SMSes, emails, and online networking pages, seem to believe that with the implementation of Jan Lokpal Bill (mind you, no other version), our country will literally turn into a heaven on earth.

If you doubt my statement, read the following mail I received from a colleague on August 25, 2011. My email ID was part of a Group Mail consisting of not less than 175 members. It took me a few hours to reply to this group, by which time I am not sure how many would have forwarded this absurd mail to their contacts and the latter in turn to others. 

Read More

Science versus Miracles - Download

Premanand’s popular book, “Science versus Miracles”, has not been available for some time now. Since Premanand himself was the distributor of the books he published and since he did not make any specific arrangement to print and distribute the books he brought out under Indian Skeptic logo, after his death there was nobody to carry on the job. 

 “Science versus Miracles” was and continues to be a handy manual for those activists who want to debunk the so called “miracles” performed by Indian godmen. Since Premanand’s death we have received a number of queries about the availability of this book with us or in bookstores.

Read More