It’s the Thought that Counts

In editions #1 and #2 of this series, I explained some ways I think atheist and/or skeptical bloggers can make and keep themselves relevant and useful. This is my last intended installment (at least, in such a formal sense), and I intend to use it to talk about getting the word out and educating the public. After all, the one good thing about having so many near-identical blog posts about Bigfoot, or about intelligent design, or whatever else, is that when someone searches the internet for “Bigfoot” or “intelligent design” their likelihood of finding a skeptical site instead of a credulous one is increased. Marginally, of course. Messing with Google rankings is a slow and dismal process. The goal, though, is an important one: making sure the public has an opportunity (and a meaningful probability) of hearing a skeptical perspective.

Perhaps the way to get better search traffic is something more along the lines of linking the word Expelled to the site Expelled Exposed when writing about Ben Stein’s movie. True, the traffic goes somewhere else, not our blogs (one reason I suspect it might be tempting for every blogger to write their own posts on these topics) — but if a good explanation has already been written with expertise, we should make a practice of linking to it when relevant, rather than wasting time and energy reinventing the wheel. I could imagine a pretty slick sidebar add-on or widget with a headline like, “There’s no evidence for:” and a (scrolling?) list of links beneath it, including whichever things you wanted to debunk.

With all that time we save linking to preexisting well-written skeptical essays, I’m sure we can come up with lots of other worthwhile discussion about how to more effectively express the value of a scientific mindset and a respect for evidence. Remember, lots of people aren’t on the internet as often as we are, and most people aren’t changing their mind because they read one snarky blog. They’re forming their opinions about science and evidence out there in the real world, so we should talk about and work towards taking our advocacy there.

I read several interesting posts a couple weeks ago by Steven Novella about how to improve science education, science textbooks, and support for science teachers. It’s clear just from the comments there that not everyone agrees with his opinions (although, in very large part, I do) but at any rate, it’s surely a conversation we ought to be having. Skeptics can make a great contribution to science education, in some cases by being great teachers or involved parents, but also just as regular, not-directly-related citizens, going to speak at a school board meeting or writing letters to local lawmakers. The education doesn’t just happen in school buildings, of course. Maybe we should be going door-to-door. (I know I linked a comic there, but in all seriousness, I love that idea.) Maybe we should be passing out flyers on the sidewalk in front of the Creation Museum or the Discovery Institute. These educational toys are a great example of thinking outside of the box about this issue. Both the strategies we should to get our message out and the content of our message are worth some discussion on our blogs.

As usual, I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts about this in the comments. More importantly though, I hope I’ve given you some food for thought if you have a blog of your own.

Tags: atheism, blogging, skepticism

Following up on my first list of ideas, here are some more thoughts I have on what skeptics, atheists, and skeptical and/or atheist bloggers can do in order to add something new and repeat ourselves less. If you’re here via the Skeptics’ Circle #95 link to the earlier list, welcome! (And if you haven’t read the current Skeptics’ Circle, you’re welcome here too, but you should go check it out!)

The issue of community seems like the elephant in the room, which is why I want to focus on it now. We talk about the skeptical movement or the atheist community — but what are those? I feel like a shared respect for critical thinking is not enough to fuel a social organization. For a group focused on faith, it makes a bit more sense to have, well, a congregation. There are holy words to be studied and dogmas to be memorized; there are inner doubts requiring the support (or pressure, depending on how you see it) of a peer group to assuage them. I have a hard time imagining an atheist group meeting — what do you talk about there?

However absurd, I think we ought to try to foster these communities, since one real benefit to being part of a religious group is the fellowship and friendship it offers. It’s good for that to be available without having to profess beliefs in the literal truth of fairy tales and magic. So, we need to have something for those groups to do. That’s one topic for blogging I’d like to see more about. If you’re part of one of these organizations, what do you do? Even if you’re not, what do you think would make a good meeting? Do you play Trivial Pursuit? Watch movies like The Core and pick them apart MST3K-style? Do you organize a lecture series? (Who do you invite?) Tell us what works and what doesn’t, or what would get you to show up versus what would get you to unsubscribe from the mailing list. On a related note, I also like how the Skepchick blog makes use of the opportunity to advertise meet-ups.

We also need to have some open dialogue about how to make these groups what we collectively want them to be. I’ve already seen a bit of writing about how to make skeptical groups more inclusive, and how (or, whether) to reach out to demographics that are underrepresented without reason in most skeptics’ organizations, but I think more people should get involved in the discussion. A few good examples, in my opinion, can be found in this pro and this contra opinion about recruiting women into skeptical organizations, as well as this post on bringing people in the arts, humanities, and social sciences into the fold. I’m sure that topics that are not specifically related to diversity, but are more generally about recruiting and publicity successes and failures, would be well-received too.

I’m planning on writing one more installment in this series, on how to be most effective at reaching out to non-skeptics and getting our message across. In the meantime, please let me know in the comments if you think I make sense or if you think I’m a lunatic.

Tags: atheism, blogging, skepticism

I said in an earlier post that I planned to do a bit of brainstorming on what we as skeptical and/or atheist bloggers ought to be doing with our time, if we’re not rehashing the old skeptical and/or atheist classics. (Forgive me if I conflate atheism and skepticism a bit in this post. In my experience around the blogosphere, the two respective groups of bloggers overlap quite a lot, and their overall objectives are very closely aligned, so for all intents and purposes of this entry they are the same.) Here is what I’ve thought of since then.

My primary inclination is to suggest that we include a larger range of issues within the skeptical canon. Instead of just writing about alternative medicine or alien sightings, we can find some other aspects of life to be skeptical about as well. We can question claims made in advertising, or critique the methods in academic papers. We can point out when politicians promote blatantly false ideas. Anything with facts is worthy of a skeptic’s attention. If you’re writing a skeptical blog, rather than just being a skeptic while blogging, I understand an inclination to stick with the standard sorts of debunking. As for the rest of us, though, there are topics we can shift towards so as not to be quite as redundant.

Straight-up activism is certainly a good idea as well. If we assume, as seems to be the case, that most people reading skeptical or atheist blogs are themselves skeptics or atheists, this could be a very effective way of organizing. Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist has recently tapped into this on behalf of Kay Hagan, a candidate for North Carolina state senate who got attacked for planning to meet with an atheist organization. There are lots of ways that a skeptical or atheist viewpoint is relevant to politics, and if you want to create real change in society in the direction of that viewpoint, you should work to elect people you believe represent it and vote out of office those who are counterproductive. In addition to just blogging about John McCain’s comments about a link between vaccines and autism, we should be protesting about it at his speaking events. (Maybe use your blog to assemble protesters.) In addition to just writing about false advertising claims made for alternative medicine, call on your local district attorney to prosecute chiropractors and crystal healers and homeopaths in your area when they make unsubstantiated claims of healing. (Maybe use your blog to distribute a template letter to send to the DA’s office.) There’s plenty of work to be done.

Finally, there’s the question of unity as a group. There’s a lot of talk about the “atheist community” or the “skeptical movement” and what its goals are. It’s difficult to have a movement or a coherent set of group goals without some infrastructure. As much as I’m wary of the election of an atheist pope or some such central authority of a group based on thinking for yourself, I think these organizations have a place at least insofar as lobbying and publicity are concerned. Rather than have people seeing one dude here or there interviewed on the local news, or have a legislator receiving an occasional letter from individual constituents, we want to present a stronger message. A spokesperson on TV saying he represents so many millions of people looks a lot more compelling. Many groups of this sort already exist, such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the National Center for Science Education, the Skeptics Society, and the Secular Coalition for America. (There are of course many others; this is just a sampling.) Joining and/or donating to these groups will make them more effective at publicizing skeptical and secular perspectives.

That’s all I’ve got for now, but not forever. I have a few other ideas still percolating, and I’ll post again about them soon. In the meantime, let me know what you think about these ideas — if they’re good, crazy, infeasible, irrelevant… whatever.

Tags: atheism, blogging, skepticism

Lest you think I was making up that radio show I mentioned the other day, I happened to catch another one, and at the right point in the broadcast to hear its name. (Yep, I’m just that lucky… or radio is just that bad.) It’s called Adventures in Odyssey. From their Parents Page:

It began as an experiment. In 1986 Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family wanted to produce a drama series for the radio that would appeal to 8-12 year olds – in the hope of countering some of the questionable programming many kids were getting from Saturday morning cartoons. The program would take place in a small town where characters could explore the events, concerns and issues facing today’s families.

Seriously — this is James Dobson’s show. This is Focus on the Family, not some guy in his basement recording some independent program for local distribution. So you’d think they’d be better at making their religious messages actually, you know, religious… but just like the episode I heard before, this one seemed to make a stronger case against Christianity than for it.

You can find a summary of this episode (and others) on their website. Basically, it’s about a boy named Isaac who has a problem with procrastination. Isaac has a history project due today, but it’s not done. There’s a geometry assignment due in a week that he’s supposed to be working on with his friend Lucy, but he hasn’t done his share of the work yet. He also promised to have made some illustrations for the local newspaper’s kids section, and he hasn’t even started. When Isaac later complains of getting a C on his history report for turning it in late, Mr. Whitaker, the sagely ice cream store owner and the star of the show, offers to help him out. He diagnoses Isaac with “chronic procrastinitus” (which Isaac, predictably, is unable to pronounce). While there is no cure, there is a treatment: a special elixir which Mr. Whitaker just happens to have in his office, since he has chronic procrastinitus too. Isaac drinks some, and it gives him the boost he needs to get motivated to do those illustrations he promised! But it was just Mr. Whitaker’s special lemonade recipe, not a magical elixir — and the power to do all that hard work came from within Isaac himself! (Bet you didn’t see that coming.) With newfound energy, Isaac rushes off to work on his geometry assignment.

But wait! Where’s the Christianity? It comes from a narrator right after the story finishes. She quotes Proverbs 10:4 and explains that God wants you to work hard and not be lazy. If you’re having trouble with laziness, just read Proverbs for a little motivation.

If you’re wondering why I listened to the show, other than the fact that there was no good music on any other station, it’s because of this: I was amazed, entranced, almost hypnotized by the possibility that they could really be making the point I thought they were making. And they were. Your hard work and good deeds don’t come from some magical, cure-all (omnipotent?) solution. They come from your decisions and your effort.

It’s not that it’s a bad message — it’s a great one. I just don’t think it jives with what they’re advocating the rest of the time. Focus on the Family says that if your friend is struggling with their marriage, you should talk to them and listen to their problems. But that’s tip #2 — tip #1 is to pray, so that God can give you the wisdom to talk to them and listen to their problems. No, it couldn’t be that you had sympathy or interpersonal skills on your own. It must have been that God gave those abilities to you. There are tons of examples of this sort of message. I guess if you’ve trained your followers not to use critical thinking, it’s not too hard for them to hear this broadcast and still say, “Thanks, God, for helping me understand the message and learn not to be lazy.”

I can’t believe these people don’t deconvert all their listeners by accident. Now, maybe James Dobson plans to do the Mr. Whitaker thing himself and make an announcement in a couple weeks. “Hey, everyone, remember that ‘God’ we told you was helping you through all your hard times and giving you strength and wisdom? Well, that was all a lie, and all that strength and wisdom was within you all along.” Somehow, though, I don’t think we should hold our breath.

Tags: atheism, christian radio, religion

PZ Myers recently called on atheists to steal communion wafers from Catholic churches so that they can be descrated/abused/whatever.  This is the result of an incident in Florida where a college student stole one and got in trouble for it.  Now, I consider myself an atheist and have a lot of sympathy for PZ’s general position, but this request is idiotic.

If you want to convince people that religion is irrational and they should question the beliefs they were raised with, the first thing you have to do is convince people that it’s not necessary to be religious to be a good person.  If people think atheists are evil, they won’t ever give the message a chance.  This is counterproductive in the extreme.  Ames at Submitted to Candid World has an excellent post on this.

I think there’s a larger point here.  Yes, the reactions to the original wafer-stealing were more extreme than can possibly be justified, and it’s tragic when people start getting death threats for things they have every right to do.  That said, taking the wafer is wrong.  It’s offensive and disrespectful on several different levels.

I first of all think it’s important to have respect for religious beliefs, even if they’re dumb and irrational.  In a society that is pluralistic and accepting of various beliefs, there is room for dialogue.  People talk about ideas, hear about what others think, and over time the better beliefs tend to win out.  This is the rationale for free speech, freedom of religion, and democracy in general.  In a society where everyone is hostile and combative towards each other, no dialogue happens.  The beliefs that win out are those with the most numerous/powerful supporters.  Which situation do you think is better for atheism?  It’s not just about the legal rights of free speech.  It’s also about the general level of dialogue in society, and actions like this seriously undermine what dialogue exists.

It’s also just offensive because any time a symbol of some faith/group/country is denigrated, it’s offensive.  I really don’t think most Catholics, especially in the US, think the wafer really becomes the body of Jesus.  I think they just take it as a religious ceremony.  Sure, Catholic dogma says it transforms, but Catholic dogma also says the Bible is the literal word of God, which only 23% of US Catholics believe.  The thing is, whatever you believe, it’s a religious object.  It represents the religion that uses it, and it has meaning to followers of that religion.  It has meaning the same way that a US flag has meaning to Americans.  (Even those who fight to keep it legal to burn it are generally offended when it’s burnt.)  You wouldn’t cover the walls of a synagogue in antisemitic graffiti just because you (correctly) believe that taking all Jewish beliefs literally is irrational.

Think of it this way.  Sticking up your middle finger at someone is offensive, but sticking up your pointer finger is just fine.  There’s nothing inherent in one finger that makes it more offensive than the other.  Noting that believing one to be offensive and the other not is an irrational belief is not reason enough to go outside, stick up your middle finger at someone, and be upset when they’re offended.  You know it’s something that they would be bothered by and you did it for no reason other than to bother them.  The same goes for stealing the wafer.  For whatever irrational reason, lots of people are offended by it.  Simple human decency says that if something you consider doing would deeply upset tons of people, and you don’t have some important reason behind doing it, you shouldn’t.

It’s one thing to think that religion is irrational and argue against it.  It’s another thing to think that religious people deserve to be harassed because of their beliefs.  PZ Myers usually does the former, and I’m all for it, but this is a clear instance of the latter.

What I find at least as upsetting as the post, though, is the comments below it.  If you read through the comments you will see several people, Z included, who commented expressing similar reservations.  They were called dicks, trolls, and all manner of other names, but were almost never responded to intelligently.  For a movement that claims to be based on the willingness to debate logical ideas and rationally defend what they have to say, this whole episode is a pretty embarrassing showing.

Tags: atheism, culture, religion, religious freedom