Skepticism Is A Dangerous Business

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
– Isaac Asimov

It’s an amazing universe we live in. And now is probably the best time to be alive to marvel at the wonders that science is revealing, and the incredibly better lifestyle that we enjoy thanks to the tireless efforts of scientists in all areas of human effort.

It seems to me that the last hundred years or so has been the most fruitful for scientific development, and even in the last fifty years, the advances that have been made are simply incredible. I can remember the days of black and white television (only two channels), and that seemed fantastic enough at the time. But since then, science has delivered everything from space travel to the Internet, not to mention huge advances in medicine, together with the extended life expectancy most of us can now expect almost as a matter of routine.

And yet, despite all of that, there are those who are hell bent on returning us to the dark ages. “Science doesn’t know everything,” is a regular mantra from the proponents of all manner of woo. These people don’t understand that science knows that science doesn’t know everything (which is why we still have it) – but science knows a lot more than they do.

In a certain sense, I don’t really care if some people want to believe nonsense, but I do object to those self-styled “experts” who make claims of paranormal or supernatural activity without evidence. These are the people whose enthusiasm far outweighs their knowledge. These are also the people who are trying to undo everything that science has achieved. These are the people who actively promote ignorance. And they really seem to think that their vacuous claims trump everything that has been discovered about the universe since the Enlightenment.

The advantage these people have at the moment is that they are under no obligation to prove any claim that they make. Even better (for them) if they are called out on their unsubstantiated claims, they merely have to wave the threat of legal action at their critics. But that won’t work much longer. (It won’t work on this blog, either) The UK government has recognised that libel laws need a radical overhaul, and reforms are in the pipeline to protect writers, including bloggers, from spurious threats of legal action.

It’s a pity, though, that the mere threat of legal action is enough to silence many of those who have the temerity to challenge irrational nonsense. At a cost of upwards of £250 per hour to hire a libel lawyer to fight off a bogus claim, it’s easy to see why paranormal charlatans get away with it.

They don’t always get away with it, of course. It was the bully boy tactics of the British Chiropractic Association against the science writer Simon Singh that led to the present reforms, and free speech will be the beneficiary – as it was when the ridiculous blasphemy laws in this country were done away with.

Still, things could be worse. A lot worse. Right now, an Indian sceptic is facing the possibility of jail because of blasphemy laws in India. It turns out that Sanal Edamaruku, an Indian rationalist, was invited by a TV station to travel to Mumbai to examine a supposed miracle – water dripping from the feet of a crucifix. When he took a close look, however, he found the source of the water – nothing more than a leaking drainpipe. Capillary action transferred the water to the statue, and the excess formed droplets that then dripped from the statue’s feet.

The local Catholic Church weren’t happy with that, and demanded that Sanal retract his findings. When he wouldn’t do that, the clergy contacted the police to invoke blasphemy laws and have him arrested! (Pity they weren’t so fast to call in the police when they knew their priests were raping children)

The stupidity is clear: this event is no miracle; it is just a chance happening without any need to assume divine intervention. And yet the believers won’t face the obvious: whether miracles are real or not, this particular event is not miraculous. But they have to persecute someone who has done no more than point out what should have been obvious to anyone who could have taken a few minutes to take a closer look before proclaiming a supernatural cause for a chance event.

More on that story can be found here.

So, sceptics still have to be wary. Just a few hundred years ago, anyone who claimed paranormal or supernatural abilities could be burned at the stake (more precisely, they just had to be accused of having those powers). Yet nowadays there is a whole paranormal industry dedicated to parting the gullible from their money, and the people who speak out against it – just pointing out that there is no confirmable evidence – are the ones who might face legal sanctions. There’s something wrong there.

But the fight has to go on. It’s difficult to sift the deluded from the out and out frauds, of course, but they are all in the same boat. Claims of the paranormal or supernatural are rife, but not a single example has ever been confirmed. We need a system where those who make paranormal clams are required to show us their evidence, not their legal muscle.

It’s a crazy world where anyone can claim to be a psychic or an expert in matters paranormal and actually get away with it. Protected by law, even. No training, no accredited qualifications – just mumbo jumbo forced on us in newspapers, magazines, books, TV programming and all over the internet. The struggle for rationality is going to go on for a while yet.

How Do You Choose A Religion?

I was recently informed that Jesus loves me, and wants to save me from an eternity in Hell. This was from an acquaintance of mine I have known for a number of years, but until now I had no idea she had any religious affiliations. More to the point, I was told, I should submit myself to God and renounce my life of sin, thereby ensuring for myself an eternity of bliss. Couldn’t I just feel the presence of the Lord? Right at that minute?

Well, no; at that minute I was feeling a creeping sense of irritation. It’s always the same with these bible bashers. They feel entitled to start droning on and on about their religion, but they can’t seem to understand that not everyone else shares their enthusiasm – or even believes a word they say.

I’ve suffered this sort of scenario many times, but once a believer starts going on about it, the ending is never a happy one. I’m never rude when I find myself being accosted by the religious, but getting out of such a situation without upsetting anyone is well nigh impossible. I usually explain gently that I am not religious and that there wouldn’t be any point in pursuing the matter. Unfortunately, however tactful I try to be, the response I get is usually one of indignation, followed quickly by growing anger and then outright condemnation: it turns out that I am, in fact, going to roast in Hell, and this religious person is going to enjoy the rest of eternity by watching me burn and scream as I undergo never ending torment. This lady tells me she is going to laugh endlessly at me from her safe, Heavenly vantage point. (Oh, and she, along with many others, hates me now that she has found out I am an atheist)

One thing got me thinking, though. As is often the case, I was told that the day will come when I will need God’s help and I will call out to him.

Really?

This claim always seem to imply that I might find myself in a life or death situation some day, and with no way out, I will pray to God to save me. But that idea raises a few problems; which god? There are thousands to choose from, after all. No doubt the lady in question is referring to her own personal deity, but for me it raises some intriguing questions.

Suppose, for some reason, I did decide that I needed religion – not necessarily because of some impending calamity – the first problem is going to be how to decide which religion it is going to be. How does one do that?

One thing that comes to mind is that I would have to shop around, as it were; see what’s on offer, and what’s in it for me. That might seem a little selfish, but so what? If everyone else claims their religion makes them happy, then I think I should be happy. The problem there, however, is finding a religion that will actually give happiness; what makes one person happy will not necessarily make someone else happy.

First thing to consider is the fact that I do not actually hate anyone – and hate seems to be a necessary condition for the faithful. The main religions hate each other, and in some parts of the world they are currently trying to wipe each other out. Even within a single religion, various sects are trying to destroy other sects deemed not to have their theology straight. I couldn’t go along with that.

Personally, I think everyone has the right to live their lives as they see fit, the only caveat being that no one is allowed to do harm to others. But if I join a religion, it seems that I will suddenly have to hate whole sections of society. I don’t hate people who have a religion, I don’t hate gays, I don’t hate women; in fact I don’t hate anyone just because their lifestyle is different from mine. And hating – or trying to hurt – anyone because some minister claims that God wants it that way is just out of the question. I prefer to be able to think for myself.

It seems to me that if any religion has a claim to being the “true religion” then it should be self evident. Instead, there are thousands of religions, and even those religions are divided into various factions. Christianity, for instance, has Catholic and Anglican divisions, which in turn have innumerable sub divisions – Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc., etc., etc. All of them claim to be right and everyone else is wrong.

How do they know that? Really, it comes down to faith – and a particular interpretation of a particular set of holy scriptures. But faith means believing without evidence, which really is bad thinking. It seems incredible to me that religions – at least in a (mostly) secular country like the UK – can (sort of) tolerate each other just so long as other adherents can be described as “people of faith” (even if it’s the “wrong” faith). And the rest of us – atheists – are still demonised by all of them for being without faith in a deity.

Hmm. The more I think about this, the less likely I am to ever turn to any religion. I was brought up as a Christian, but as I got older I started to realise that the things I was taught did not match what I actually observed in the real world. There are no miracles, just faith in a god (or gods) that do not deliver what is promised. No evidence is needed, whatever happens. Someone prayed-for recovers from an illness, halleluiah; someone else dies despite prayer, halleluiah, the lord decided to take him to heaven (never Hell). It doesn’t matter what happens, praise the lord either way. God takes all the credit, but never any blame. It almost beggars belief, but I have even come across people who have died despite prayers being offered on their behalf who themselves have been blamed for “not having enough faith.” Right.

In a system where nothing can be questioned, but everything is deemed to be the will of a deity, people have to give up their ability to think for themselves, and instead surrender to ignorance. Then again, religion allows people to commit the worst atrocities and still claim the moral high ground. Whether it is flying aeroplanes into buildings, bombing abortion clinics or generally destroying the human rights of individuals or whole sections of society, religion allows people to commit horrors and feel good about it because they do all that in the name of their particular god.

It’s strange, though, isn’t it? People’s gods seem, in fact, to be very powerless. The horrors that some people inflict on others are done by people, not gods. Whether it is an appalling act of terrorism, or just a promise to laugh at an individual burning for eternity, all of it is done by people in their deity’s name and therefore individual religious “activists” are somehow absolved from any personal responsibility. That must be handy for a person’s conscience: commit the worst atrocities imaginable, and just say it is the will of God. (God, clearly, does not do his own dirty work nowadays.)

No, I’m going to have to give this a bit more thought before I consider the possibility of me ever turning to some invisible guy in the sky who cannot do anything himself. Thousands of gods; billions of believers; lots of hatred; no miracles; death and destruction to the infidels; smug self righteousness from ignorant followers: but atheists like me being vilified because we don’t believe without evidence.

Even better (or worse, depending on y0ur point of view), I have found myself being accused of being a “militant” or even an “extremist” atheist.

With thanks to The Oatmeal here is what real extremists are:

Just in case you think the above cartoon is just displaying stereotypes, you are right. Some atheists do not necessarily drink microbrews, and they might not all agree that Tesla > Edison. But they won’t be killing each other to decide the matter.

Demon Killers

So it’s happened again – another exorcism, another needless death, and two people jailed for life because of irrational superstition.

It’s hard to believe that in the 21st century, there are still people who prefer to believe not only in the existence of demons and spirit possession, but also that they can drive out these non-existent entities. But the problem with a firmly held belief system like “possession” is that it is totally immune to reason.

In times gone past, before psychology and psychiatry became established sciences, strange and eccentric behaviour in a person could so often be interpreted as spirit possession. It was the only thing that pre-scientific people could think of to explain what nowadays would be diagnosed as a mental disorder.

It seems, however, that dark-age thinking is still around and thriving. The self-appointed experts don’t need objective, scientific methodology to determine what is going on when someone’s behaviour seems, to them at least, erratic. Their analysis comes down to simply this: “I can’t think of a reason to explain this person’s bizarre actions, therefore it is spirit or demon possession.” And then they go ahead and administer their preferred brand of exorcism that can lead, in some cases, to prolonged torture and even death for the supposedly possessed victim.

That’s not just bad thinking; it can barely be described as thinking at all. It is not merely irrationality, either. It is dangerous nonsense that can never have a happy ending. It might not seem so surprising that this sort of thing goes on in remote parts of the world where some people still live a fairly primitive existence. In some parts of Africa even children are being tortured and killed because scapegoats are needed when a crop fails or rainfall is scarce.

It should be different in the UK. But it isn’t, even though it happens less frequently. It is a growing problem. Unfortunately, there are numerous people in the world – and the UK – who actively promote the nonsensical idea that exorcism is a valid way of dealing with what is, in fact, a variety of mental disorders that can (and should) be properly treated or controlled with various psychological and psychiatric interventions.

When unqualified people claim that mentally ill people are suffering “possession,” I think there is a case to be made for the exorcists themselves to to be treated by mental health professionals (hopefully before they kill someone).

The bad thinking going on here is: “This person is acting strangely, therefore he/she is possessed.”

Good thinking would be: “This person is acting strangely; I’d better get medical help.”

This is not the first case of death by exorcism and, sadly, it will not be the last.

Religion wrong, science right

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”  – Bertrand Russell.

An article on the BBC website here reminded me of an encounter I had with a couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses many years ago. It began with the usual knock on the door just as we were about to have lunch (I don’t know how these buggers manage to do it; every time I’m about to eat – knock, knock, knock. It gets pretty annoying).

Anyway, there they were – two well-meaning souls who were there, they said, to give me “the good news.” Cobblers. Good news would be something like, “We know we’re a pain in the arse, so we’ve decided never to knock on your door again.”

This particular encounter sticks in my memory, however, because I did take some time to chat to them (we must have been having a salad that day, I guess, so I can’t have been worried about a hot lunch that would go cold). And most memorably, there was a claim they made on the basis of “revealed knowledge” now proven to be utter nonsense.

For some reason, the conversation had turned to the existence of life itself. You won’t be surprised to know that the JW standpoint is that of creationism, and a complete denial of evolution. Even though these people seem to accept that some form of micro evolution goes on – dogs, for instance, can breed different varieties but they’re still dogs – they deny the reality of evolution itself. Not for them the boring and irrelevant stuff like masses of scientific evidence, including converging evidence from various scientific disciplines like genetics, geology, palaeontology, cosmology, etc. For them, if the Bible says something it must be true, and if it is not in the Bible, it must be false.

When I stated my contention that there is very likely to be life elsewhere in the universe – indeed the likelihood that life might well be ubiquitous, I was met with the sort of condescending smugness that only a religious fundamentalist can muster. “In fact,” I was informed, “there is no life anywhere else in the universe; the only place it exists is here on Earth.”

It goes without saying, of course, that the basis for that claim is in the Bible itself – not because the Bible asserts that this is the only inhabited planet, but that the Bible does not say specifically that there is life anywhere else. If the Bible doesn’t say it, then it ain’t true. Full stop. And that means, literally, a full stop to all further inquiry. Which sort of explains why religion and science can never be compatible, I think.

But the logic of the believer can be quite remarkable; never quite coinciding with real logic, their argument went like this:

“Scientists/astronomers have failed to find planets around any stars they have looked at. Therefore, there are no planets anywhere else in the universe. Ergo, there is also no life anywhere else in the universe.”

That seems like bad thinking to me. My own argument went like this:

The laws of physics apply all over the universe. Therefore it is likely that the same laws of physics allow for the formation of planets around stars, and ultimately the high likelihood that there is life elsewhere, including intelligent life. I also suggested that as science and technology advanced we would see the development of ever more sophisticated telescopes and instrumentation that would discover other planets and eventually other civilisations.

Unlike the JW’s (and all other religious fundies), I was not claiming certainty, but it was rather satisfying a few months later when the discovery and confirmation of the first extra-solar planet was announced.

Obviously, we do not, yet, have confirmation that there is life (sentient or otherwise) anywhere else. But that prospect is very real. From my speculation that life elsewhere is possible due to what we know about the physical universe, it does not, of course, follow that life must exist in other parts of the cosmos. However, the discovery of what is being called a “water world” surely increases the probability that we are not alone. Although this new planet appears to be far too hot to allow for life as we know it, the fact that water exists on another world is promising news that makes it more and more likely that the discovery of life on other planets is a realistic hope. More information can be found at Phil Plait’s blog.

I think it’s quite sad (as well as annoying) that those who know the least about science (and logic) should be the most vocal in its condemnation. We live in very exciting times, and knowledge is increasing at a phenomenal rate thanks to science, but despite the determination of the religious to take us back to the middle ages. In the face of so much wilful ignorance, the struggle to maintain the values of the Enlightenment is going to go on for a long time yet.

I sort of wish that those two JWs who interrupted my lunch that day would turn up again, though, just so I could ask them one question: “Well?”

The danger of relying on religion as a means of “knowing” should be quite clear. When you open a Bible, you have to close your mind.