Is atheism a prerequisite for skepticism?
Over at JDC’s blog, a post entitled The Trouble with Skeptics detailing a list of ten pitfalls for the good skeptic to avoid has sparked a mini-debate about whether skeptics need to be atheists, or whether “religious skeptic” is a valid term. This is something that I’ve been wanting to write about since starting this blog, but haven’t found the appropriate time or emotional fortitude to do so. But since there seems to be a bit of a discussion of the topic floating around at the moment, and since it is coming up to a particularly important festival on the Christian calendar (as well as being an important time on the calendars of other religions), now seems as good an opportunity as any.
It’s fair to say that I come down fairly strongly on one side of this particular fence, as visitors to my “about me” page (which really could do with a bit of a tidy-up) will probably already have guessed. I call myself a Christian, for a number of reasons. I do believe in a god of sorts, and I believe in many of the values described through the parables of Jesus as detailed in the New Testament. I find the stories of the Bible a useful peg upon which to hang my values, and to give me an underlying sense of purpose in what I do, beyond simple self-gratification. It motivates me to put others ahead of myself, to question and challenge those who act purely in their own self-interest. It’s also nice to be able to hold on to the hope that there’s something beyond our personal three-score-and-ten years (well… ok, so it’s more than that now) that we get on this planet.
I do, however, find that a particularly difficult position to maintain as someone who writes about dodgy health news, the appalling current de facto state of everyday computer software, silly statistics, and so on, in a generally skeptic manner. Simon, who commented on JDC325’s post, sums my position up very well when he writes:
Thank you for this. I’ve experienced many of these and decided to distance myself from the Skeptic community in the event I be called up on any of them. [The assumption that a skeptic is (or ought to be) atheist] is particularly sensitive for me – I’ve felt alienated by those who present the impression that Skeptics ought to be atheist.
I think it’s fair to say that being an active skeptic is likely to correlate very strongly with being an atheist, but as JDC325 and this interesting blog post on the idea of “deist skeptics” both assert, skeptics with religious beliefs do exist and the notion is by no means a contradiction in terms.
I can, however, sympathise with those who have arrived at the opposite conclusion. There is an awful lot of absolute twaddle written and spoken in the name of “Christianity” all over the place. A particularly disturbing example is the opposition to the teaching of the theory of evolution and instead replacing it with teaching intelligent design as fact. The overarching impression I get from any dedicated Christian television channel I’ve ever had the misfortune to watch is of self-satisfied smug protectionism (and lunacy). We see the spouting of awful homophobia (some of which is beautifully rebutted). Speaking as a demographer, I find the Pope’s stance on family planning and the prevention of the spread of AIDS deeply disturbing. And of course, there were the dreadful events of 11th September 2001, 11th March 2004 and 7th July 2005 (amongst others) in the name of religious extremism.
However, despite these examples of the consequences of belligerently sticking to a set of personal values, I don’t think that discarding theism as being incompatible with skepticism is right for the following reasons.
Firstly, this argument assumes a particular definition of what “belief in God” actually means. Belief in God does not necessarily mean “the adamant assertion that there is a physical entity in the sky/space that made the world in the time it takes Earth to spin six times about its axis” or even “the stubborn refusal to acknowledge science in favour of some mystical spiritual dimension”. A popular derogatory term for God is “that bearded man in the sky”. It’s something that I find personally rather snooty and irritating. If this is your definition of the God you don’t believe in, I don’t believe in him either. (Describing the definition of God that I do believe in is complex. I don’t wish to discuss it now, as it would detract from the purpose of this post. I hope to do so in the future.)
Secondly, related to the first, the purpose of religious story such as those found in the Bible is not factual, scientific truth, but guidance through story and metaphor. While Bible stories fall down on factual accuracy, their power is in their simplistic explanations that are easy for people to grasp. Just like bad “scientific” evidence, however, they can be manipulated and distorted to seemingly support any position. Techniques for doing bear a striking similarity: the cherry-picking of obscure Bible verses, quoting out of context, undergoing extensive and aggressive media and PR campaigns, and so on. This view is largely what underlies the Sea of Faith network, who accept the fact that religion is a human invention but do not see this as derogatory.
Thirdly, seeing only the dreadful consequences of poor theology ignores the good that religious faith can bring. Church communities (at least in the past) are strong and inclusive; parish vicars and reverends (the good ones anyway) work tirelessly visiting members of their congregation, particularly those who are socially isolated to ensure that they don’t feel detached from the rest of the world. Conversion and indoctrination is often the last thing on a Christian’s mind. I’m reminded here of a brief twitter exchange I had with Gimpy a few months ago where he criticised the Tony Blair Faith Foundation for overplaying the role of faith in the delivery of malaria interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa. My impression of the foundations activities was that they were seeking to utilise existing faith-based social networks and communities to expedite the delivery of evidence-based anti-malarial interventions, such as bed-nets. This is in contrast to those who go in denigrating evidence-based interventions and instead convincing local leaders to try evidence-contradicting “treatments” such as homeopathy or vitamin pills for life-threatening diseases.
Sadly, however, just as good rigorous scientists are more media averse than cranks and quacks, the busy local vicar is far more interested in caring in the community than lapping up the media spotlight. It is because of this that Christians should feel encouraged to be skeptics, rather than be alienated. It’s arguably a harder field to be skeptical in, simply because Bible verses are more arbitrary than scientific rigour. But I think that it’s a worthwhile activity to engage in, as it carries the extra weight of criticism from within rather than from without. For people who hold a strong and belligerent religious belief which you think is wrong (such as denouncing condom use as a family planning and anti-STI intervention for example), simply adding “and do you really think that Jesus would have disapproved of the wide availability of condoms in light of the human devastation caused by HIV/AIDS and the consequences of unfettered population growth, particularly in poor countries?” to the scientific evidence may provide a means of cracking through the mental barrier that is immediately erected when confronted with scientists.
Many Christians are just as fed up of pseudo-theologians as eminent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, though they choose not to conclude that the whole practice of religion is a waste of time. Many would love to see their religion re-associated with themes of social justice, community cohesion, love, peace and helping the needy as it once was, rather than the self-serving guilt-fest the public face of religion portrays.
And to be quite honest, we need help. As I mentioned earlier, many of the same canards that litter bad science are evident in bad theology. The threat of legal chill is just as ominous for theist skeptics as in scientific discussions (just ask Dave Walker). After all, if scientific evidence concludes that laetrile is an ineffective treatment for cancer, that promoting homeopathy as a preventive intervention against malaria is unethical, that the benefits of chiropractic have been overblown and in fact are outweighed by the risks, and so on, then it is a human duty to ensure that the conclusions supported by the evidence are promoted, regardless of religion.
After all, according to the story, Jesus was a skeptic, who continually thought critically about the religious and social hierarchy that existed at the time, wasn’t he?
Have a happy Christmas.
Thanks for quoting me – you’ve written an excellent piece here. It’s late so I won’t reply now but I want to revisit your words soon as I feel they need to be shared
Thank you. I appreciate that. I look forward to reading your contribution in due course.
This was very interesting, if painful, reading. In a nutshell, I totally disagree – I think skepticism is all-or-nothing.
Fundamentalist religious bigots will be “skeptical” towards some things – however trivial those things may seem – the key aspect of being a true rational thinker is that you apply that test to everything (possible). I can’t emphasize that enough. You can’t be selectively rational, because being selectively rational is being irrational.
If you do not think you have assessed religion skeptically, but accept that you have decided to be irrational on that topic, then I don’t think you can consider yourself rational or skeptical in a true sense. If you believe that you have assessed religion skeptically, I think you *may* have lied to yourself!
I’ll whizz through your points quickly:
1.) “Firstly, this argument assumes a particular definition of what “belief in God” actually means … Describing the definition of God that I do believe in is complex. I don’t wish to discuss it now”.
Your initial sentence has promise, and I agree that theism has far greater scope than the stereotypical assumptions of Christian beliefs which you lampoon. But then you have admitted that you are Christian, yet refuse to offer any information which might help make sense of this apparent contradiction? Moreover, your lampooning of the “man-in-the-sky” seems unduly harsh, spectacularly so coming from an actual Christian, and I think the mocking tone you used very much warrants an explanation of how your beliefs are different and less open to the derision which you have shown here to others’.
2.) “Secondly, related to the first, the purpose of religious story such as those found in the Bible is not factual, scientific truth, but guidance through story and metaphor”.
I see you have no issues with being controversial! Haha! I would argue that that is entirely your opinion – and to generalise, that is the opinion of the liberal / moderate, rather than the fundamentalist. You must accept that there are many (literally millions, if not billions) of people who take religious stories as absolutely and entirely accurate. They are presented as, and are therefore very often interpreted as, something even more “factual” than fact itself – they are the word of god. I know many people who literally believe Jonah lived in a whale and, if I am honest, I have more respect for a fundamentalist than a moderate, because the fundamentalist is at least consistent.
As with all liberal / moderates – my question to you is this: If you have taken it upon yourself to interpret these texts, to strip out the parts you deem unworthy, to determine for yourself that what appears and is presented as fact is merely metaphor, and have decided that that is acceptable, then why stop there? I, personally, think you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you – but I am absolutely not religious. Jesus has had many valid moral philosophies attributed to him – it seems that, like me, you find value in (some) of them. I am constantly amazed by how many people think rejecting a faith means rejecting ALL the ideas it represents.
3.) “Thirdly, seeing only the dreadful consequences of poor theology ignores the good that religious faith can bring.”
This also relates very directly to a somewhat tell-tale statement you make in you introduction:
“I find the stories of the Bible a useful peg upon which to hang my values.”
Utility has no essential relationship with veracity, and that cannot be denied. I’m surprised that this basic logical howler has gone unnoticed, if you consider yourself skeptical. In fact, to conflate the two is to engage in an activity which is tantamount to the antithesis of skepticism.
The reason I have taken the time to write this is because a.) I am an optimist and I hope that one day humanity will transcend religion b.) your moderate status suggests you are more open to this shift than a fundamentalist and c.) I am somewhat shocked (and, if I am totally honest, offended) by the idea that a Christian would pretend to be a skeptic.
I hope I haven’t offended you, and I am aware that often my writings can tend towards an incendiary tone – but these issues arouse passion in me as they clearly do in yourself.
Happy holiday
Luke -
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You have raised some important questions. I’m afraid I don’t have time to respond to them right now as I’m busy cobbling together a conference paper though I hope to respond to them in the new year. Please don’t think I’ve ignored you!
@lukeg
You believe Skepticism is all or nothing. I am interested, therefore, to hear your views on climate change – from a skeptics point of view.
There may, or may not be, some doubt over the contribution of mankind to global warming – so-called anthropogenic global warming. Whether or not this doubt is valid is questionable, but sweeping statements have certainly been made on both sides of the debate. Such statements, as a skeptic, you would presumably disregard. Which presumably leaves you in the difficult middle ground. Can you be sure, as a skeptic, of our contribution and of the severity of potential climate change? I don’t think, with this example, that you can. Science points us one way, but it can’t know how bad it will/could be, because you can’t measure something that hasn’t happened. Therefore, if you take the view that something must be done to combat climate change, say, do you take this view as a skeptic – which is all or nothing – or something else?
Happy new year everyone.
Quick responses to lukeg’s 1-2-3:
1) You’re right, it does warrant more explanation. But not now. It’s extremely lengthy, would probably take at least a couple of thousand words in its own right, and (crucially) my opinion of what God is evolves all the time. As the old adage goes, nobody’s perfect, and if anyone thinks they have a perfect and unshakeable understanding of what “God” is then that is where they are deluding themselves. The “bearded man in the sky” quip is in my view a highly trite and crass straw man – however many Christians (particularly the more public ones) fail to recognise it as such and make themselves look rather silly.
2) “You must accept that there are many (literally millions, if not billions) of people who take religious stories as absolutely and entirely accurate.”
First of all, must I? I challenge that assertion. Maybe the most prominent, but as I argued originally, are they a representative sample? I suggest not. Secondly, so what – does that make them right? In my opinion, no. I’m not arguing from their standpoint. I’m arguing from mine. I’m similarly amazed by how many people think accepting a faith means agreeing with the rest of its practitioners.
3) I understand from this that you’re saying that I’ve got “usefulness” mixed up with “truthfulness”. I don’t think I’ve got them mixed up. Ideally we would love to operate from a standpoint of complete truthfulness, but this ideal is simply unattainable – we have to make decisions and take actions based on incomplete information. That’s not to say we should ditch science completely – quite the reverse. We should of course attempt to get the best knowledge we possibly can. But there comes a point at which decisions have to be made.
Simon’s climate change vignette is a perfect example. The science underlying the anthropogenic global warming theory is incomplete, as those who claim the planet is not warming or accept that it is but that it’s nothing to do with us humans scream vociferously, but it is a damn sight better than the evidence offered to the contrary. The science supporting global warming is based on data from around the world, based on long time series, estimated using a number of different methods for corroboration. When data are presented graphically, it is done using appropriate scales. Great lengths are taken to explain how determining temperature trends is a “signal vs. noise” process; one has to work very hard and very carefully to strip away the noise (i.e. the random fluctuations) and leave the signal (the overall trend). Contrarily, the basis of climate denial arguments seems to rest on data from specific, isolated places that just so happen to be getting colder, restricting their analysis to short time periods, presenting their data on graphs with axes so large (say 30-40 degrees C) so that temperature rises of 1-2 degrees become hidden, fallacious arguments like “temperatures rise and fall in cycles, therefore we are obviously just on the upswing of a cycle”, and when that fails, resorting to character assassinations and screaming about out-of-context misrepresentations of internal documents that simply do not mean what the climate denier claims they do. In short, they poke at the moth-holes in their opponents’ evidence while detracting attention from the gaping canyons in their own. In other words (Matthew 7:5 and Luke 6:42, to be precise), they try to remove the splinter from their brother’s eye without taking the log out of their own.
Additionally, there are reasons of faith why I think we should act to curb our own usage of fossil fuels and other worldly resources: a sense of justice for those likely to be affected adversely if the current scientific consensus is correct, that those who argue against it appear to do so from a position of vested interests and greed, that our life on this planet is not a right but a privilege that comes with responsibility. That’s not to say that these thoughts trump scientific argument, but augment it.
I think it’s a worthwhile task to attempt to be as rational as possible, but there are limits to what is humanly possible to achieve, which for me, makes pure rationality an ideology rather than something attainable. That’s not to say we should not try, however – we clearly should – but for me my faith in God is in some senses an admission of my own failings in that regard.
In conclusion, then, I think your idea that skepticism is all-or-nothing is arguably very worthy, but in my view simply amounts to another ideology. It ignores the role of context – in the context of science for example, I would agree that religion has no part in the formation of the evidence base, but in the context of the motivation behind why people do science, i.e. to save lives or improve the quality of the lives of people less fortunate than themselves, the role of religion is more germane. Not a necessary condition, mind you, but neither directly at odds with it. I agree with your general point that a lot of the time, Christians do get it wrong – and I hope in many senses to offend them as much as I appear to have offended you with this article. But I don’t agree that skepticism and Christianity can’t be manifest in the same person. In fact much of the motivation behind writing this article and this lengthy response is that I am skeptical of the notion that becoming a secular society will by definition solve all of life’s problems that are so often blamed on religion.