Skeptics Versus Religion

In Nick Cohen's Guardian review of Mark Henderson's book The Geek Manifesto, he suggests that skeptics are being cowardly in not taking on religion.

Is religion a legitimate skeptical target and if so, which aspects of it should we be tackling?

There are already certain aspects of belief that skeptics do take on. For example, the pseudo-scientific claims of creationism or Intelligent Design and its teaching in schools. In September, Alom Shaha will be talking about science versus religion in the classroom at London Skeptics. The 40 Days of Treats campaign was run by two skeptics, who took on religious opposition to abortion. Claims of faith healing are regularly reported to Advertising Standards; one of the more recent was HOTS Bath.

Skepticism promotes rationalism, evidence and scientific thinking. It's not about what or how much we know but about how we know it. If new evidence challenges established thinking, then that thinking changes. This isn't the U turn dreaded by politicians or proof of weakness in the methodology, it is the methodology.

There are skeptics who take on the basic tenets of religion but should this be the basis for a campaign or something we should do more of? I would suggest not. I advocate the generally secular position that beliefs should be a personal matter, that religion should have no special privilege in law-making, healthcare, equalities, education and so on. Beliefs matter less than actions. Yes, actions are founded on beliefs but that's where legislation comes in.

It's easy to find holes in the logic of any religion, flaws in the reasoning, contradictions and scientifically unverifiable claims. It's easy to point and laugh, sneer at and condemn people's genuinely-held beliefs. We need to acknowledge that none of us is as rational as we might like to think. Atheists are not more intelligent than believers and simply pointing out the flaws or evils in religion is not going to make it go away. We need to be humane as well as rational, understanding the many complex reasons people believe what they believe. There is a role for intelligent satire but for some skeptics ridiculing 'truth' claims is a sport that makes them feel good about themselves but what else does it achieve?

What might we want skeptical activism to achieve? One of the first rules of campaigning is to identify your goals.

Do we want an end to all religion? That's not going to happen. Fewer people believe and actively practice religion (in the West) than in the past, but that's not a trend that will carry it into oblivion, largely because of the way the human mind has evolved combined with social factors.

Do we want laws and professional bodies' best practice to be evidence-based and not give in to religious demands for special treatment? Do we want to raise awareness or influence policy-makers (or both)? Do we want to attempt huge campaigns (that may demand more resources than we can realistically provide) or do we want more grassroots activism, tackling individual claims and inequities? These questions all need to be addressed.

We already promote science and evidence-based thinking so that people have access to information about alternatives to belief and its effects should they want them. We do this on a small scale at our meetings and conferences. Brian Cox, Simon Singh and David Attenborough (who might not identify as a skeptic) have been making science programmes for years that have mass appeal, along with many others.

What other areas of religion should we then be tackling?

Should we be involved in clashes between religion and equalities, for example women's rights under sharia law? Should we be running a gay marriage campaign to counter the strong religious opposition or a campaign against the ever-growing number of state sponsored faith schools? There is clear evidence that the majority supports gay marriage and doesn't want more faith schools but is this the kind of evidence we need to take action on or are they purely secular matters?

The atheist bus campaign promoted scepticism about the existence of God but that was scepticism with a C, not with a K, and it was a humanist campaign. It has been suggested that every school should be sent a copy of Origin of Species in response to Gove sending the King James Bible but this would be an empty (and expensive) tit-for-tat gesture.

Secularism and skepticism are obviously not mutually exclusive but it's about the focus of activism, about branding.

One area where skeptics could do more is in the clash between religion and healthcare, where there are usually clear evidence, facts and research as opposed to religious propaganda, unsubstantiated claims and downright lies. The Christian Medical Fellowship and their like (including Nadine Dorries) write propaganda and lies about abortion, mental illness, contraception, doctors' right to proselytize in the surgery and conscientious objections. Add to this pharmacists demanding the right to refuse to sell the morning after pill, therapists claiming to cure homosexuality and medical students refusing to bare their arms to scrub up. And the Vatican (among others) consistently opposing stem cell research. I've written about all of these matters, in some cases more than once, if you want some background.

I suspect that part of the reason we haven't done much in some of these areas is that they cover so-called women's and gay issues and skepticism has historically been very much a heterosexual male domain. But this is changing, as the number of women now coming to Skeptics in the Pub meets and the 40 Days of Treats campaign run by skeptics Liz Lutgendorff and Carmen D'Cruz shows.

Two ways to take direct action are to write to MPs and ministers, and to respond to consultations. This may not seem like a very exciting or high-profile activity, but your MP should respond to your letter and they often assume that for every voter who writes, there are many others who agree, especially if it's a personal, individual letter rather than one obviously copied from an organisation's template. Consultations often inform legislation and best practice. For example, the Secular Medical Forum's recent response to a consultation on Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice, makes some good points.

And then there's good old fashioned talking - to family, friends, people in the pub, at school parents meetings and at work. Not haranguing, not lecturing, just talking. It's what Christians would call bearing witness.

I don't believe that skeptics avoid religion out of cowardice but we do need to think more about what we can do in this area, to define our targets and our responses to them. There is no single skeptic opinion on any one subject but many shades and variations, so I'm not hoping for a mass, homogenous uprising. I am hoping that Nick Cohen's comment and this response will open a debate.

John Gray on science and religion

John Gray's talk on Radio 4's Point of View called Can religion tell us more than science? (transcript here) claims that 'too many atheists miss the point of religion, it's about how we live and not what we believe'.

Gray maintains that 'We tend to assume that religion is a question of what we believe or don't believe'.

Firstly, who is this 'we'? Secondly, don't be patronising by pretending to include yourself and then showing very clearly why you're not one of we.

He blames this assumption on western philosophy (yes, all of it, apparently) and 'the dull debate on atheism'. Again with the patronising. He continues: 'In this view belonging to a religion involves accepting a set of beliefs, which are held before the mind and assessed in terms of the evidence that exists for and against them. Religion is then not fundamentally different from science, both seem like attempt to frame true beliefs about the world'.

Religion is not just that, it's also about morality, among other things. It tells us how to live. Science, on the other hand, makes no attempt to tell us how we should live. Nor is it based on a supernatural world view but on observable evidence. The activity of science is about how to interpret that evidence. Religion decides what the truth is, science attempts to uncover it. So yes, fundamentally different.

Gray likes his generalisations. He lays the blame for the false view of religion partly of the feet of Frazer and his book The Golden Bough, which he says has been 'immensely influential'. He claims it lies behind the assertions of the 'new atheists'.

Many atheists and others know that there are many reasons to belong to a religion, some cultural or social, some historical and some emotional. The majority of people do not objectively analyse their religion or weigh up the relative evidential merits of all of them before plumping for one. Some aspects of religion, like creation, are examined by some believers in an attempt to find evidence and even then, they are trying to justify their beliefs to others, not to themselves. Only a small number of theologians and thinkers actively examine their beliefs as a whole. It's not common practice to weigh up the evidence for the Sermon on the Mount or accepting Jesus as your personal saviour in order to win eternal salvation.

And religions do rest on what we believe - take the Credo, for example, which is Latin for 'I believe' and is followed by a list of things the believer believes in. They don't like it very much if you think it's just words when you're preparing for First Communion. Belief, or dogma, matter very much to the Fathers of the Church. Heresy is about believing the wrong things, so are schism and apostasy. They're not just about doing the wrong thing but believing the wrong thing and then acting on it.

He continues:'the idea that religion is a relic of primitive thinking strikes me as itself incredibly primitive.'

Again, this is not the only or the dominant thought about religion among atheists who he is far too keen to tar with the same brush. The human mind has not evolved a great deal since primitive times. It is not now a sophisticated machine compared with the neolithic brain. One common idea is that religion is a by-product of the way our brains evolved (see Pascal Boyer, for example) - and the way they still function, which is why we still have religion. There are elements of religion that come from early societies which are not relevant today but which still form part of the core beliefs but many of these are to do with identity and difference as much as trying to explain the universe in an animistic or divinely controlled way.

Then he gets to the nub of his argument: 'Practice - ritual, meditation, a way of life - is what counts. What practitioners believe is secondary, if it matters at all.'

This is a little simplistic to say the least. Actions are informed by beliefs. And beliefs do matter to the people who hold them. There are rituals that are performed without conscious analysis of the beliefs that underpin them but that doesn't mean the beliefs themselves are unimportant. One way they matter is in defining the difference between one set of believers and another. Rituals can be comforting, they can bind groups together and they can structure our time but without the beliefs they rest on, they would not have the hold on the mind that they do. And there would be nothing to distinguish them from any other ritual behaviour. He's positing a kind of religion as OCD.

When he says that it's actions that count - what does he mean by 'count'?

Gray then turns to science. 'Scientific inquiry is the best method we have for finding out how the world works, and we know a lot more today than we did in the past. That doesn't mean we have to believe the latest scientific consensus. If we know anything, it's that our current theories will turn out to be riddled with errors. Yet we go on using them until we can come up with something better'.

This is where there is a bit of slippage between his uses of 'belief'. Scientists don't believe a theory, they know that it is either true or that it's the best current approximation of the truth. Non-scientists don't believe theories either, they accept that some expert or other knows what they're doing. Not all our current theories will one day fall apart.

He says: 'If science produces theories that we can use without believing them, religion is a repository of myth.' This is a bit of an odd if...then scenario. Science doesn't produce theories we can use without believing them because no-one believes a theory, they either know it to be true or the current best guess, as I said. So his initial statement is false. Moreover, religion is not a repository of myth to the people who believe it, it's revealed truth except for the half-hearted who just go along for a bit of a sing. And while it contains stories or parables, it also contains instructions on how to behave that rest on the basic tenets. If you don't believe those tenets to begin with, then your actions are empty.

He then says: 'Just as you don't have to believe that a scientific theory is true in order to use it, you don't have to believe a story for it to give meaning to your life.' He's being a bit slippery with his use of 'true' here. Knowing that a scientific theory may be a workable approximation is not the same as knowing that a myth didn't actually happen while containing useful guidance to behaviour or insight into the human mind.

Apparently, 'some of the ancient myths we inherit from religion are far more truthful than the stories the modern world tells about itself'. Well yes, some myths are better than others but this nostalgia, this 'myths aren't what they used to be' approach overlooks the fact that there are also non-religious myths that contain lessons about ourselves. Privileging religious myths without any kind of quality control is fruitless.

Darwin's theory of evolution , he says is 'unlikely to be the final truth'. Who says it is? There have already been plenty of refinements, additions and corrections to it.

He then attacks the 'myth of salvation through science. Many of the people who scoff at religion are sublimely confident that, by using science, humanity can march onwards to a better world'.

There is no such generally held myth. Rational people think that some parts of science can be a useful tool for improving our lives. This is partly based on evidence - medicine and technology have demonstrably improved lives. That the improvements have yet to benefit most of the Third World is not a failure of science but of politics and, in some cases, religion (for example, banning condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention, contraception and so on). Moreover, many scientists are more than aware of the destructive potential of science - nuclear war and global warming for example. They are not singing hymns to the power of science. Gray says that 'it can't save the human species from itself.' as if this were some great insight.

He claims that science is a human invention, just like religion. Yes, they are both the products of the human brain but religion is entirely made up whereas science methodology is based on phenomena. It's a bit like comparing cheese and a pyramid - not a comparison that tells us anything very useful about either.

Evangelical atheists, he says ' think human life would be vastly improved if only everyone believed as they do, when a little history shows that trying to get everyone to believe the same thing is a recipe for unending conflict.' Historically, when attempts have been made to try and get everyone to believe the same thing, these things have generally not been evidence-based but ideological. Getting everyone to believe that we'd better look after the planet rather than letting it fall apart is not such a bad idea.

Gray concludes that we should 'stop believing in belief' because 'What we believe doesn't in the end matter very much. What matters is how we live'. So if you feel like joining a religion, 'just go into the church, synagogue, mosque or temple and take it from there'. Should you just do what you're told without examining why? Follow the rituals and never mind the theology? Just taking it from there may not do you much good in some religions or denominations if you happen to be female or gay.

Gray is seriously misrepresenting science and all but a handful of the most extreme atheists - who in fact are not very scientific in their approach, lacking an understanding of human nature. But he is also misrepresenting religion, selling it short as deeds not words - and without any kind of assessment of what price you or others may have to pay for that kind of cavalier, mindless approach. Never mind, let's all just sing a hymn together, it'll be a marvellously uplifting, bonding experience. Better still, sing it in Latin so we don't have to worry about what the words mean. He's right that it's how we live that matters, but he's wrong about everything else.

Skeptical Women

This is for Ada Lovelace Day, celebrating women in science and technology.

When I started going to Skeptics in the Pub (SitP) in 2003, it was a small affair in a room over a pub near Borough, in London. I was sometimes the only woman there and even on a good night, we were really in the minority in a room full of men, some of whom were seriously lacking in social skills. I wanted to get more involved and, quite early on, I helped test a woman who wanted to claim James Randi's million dollars because she could find missing people with a pendulum and an A-Z. She couldn't.

Slowly, SitP changed. Sid Rodrigues took over from Nick Pullar; it grew and grew, its profile became much higher. Now there are SitPs all over the country and abroad. The London one moved to a much bigger pub in Holborn and is often so full we have to turn people away (or I do as I'm door bitch). There are still a few ubernerds but a lot of women now come every month. We're getting more female speakers now, too.

Women don't just turn up to the meetings, they take an active part in the skeptic movement. The hugely successful TAM London is run by Tracy King. The London 1023 event protesting against homeopathy was organised by Carmen D'Cruz. We now also have Rebecca Watson, the founder of Skepchick, in London (conveniently married to Sid in a brilliant skeptical double-act). And there are the very many women who help out behind the scenes. Skeptical women hold their own on science forums, in blogs, in debates and at meetings.

Some of the women who come to SitP work in science and technology but many don't. It's important for women to know that you don't have to be a scientist to promote scientific rationalism, that it's not 'thinking like a man' to want evidence, be logical and think critically. Science is not 'cold, rational and masculine'.

Women are the main purchasers of alternative medicine for themselves and their families, the biggest consumers of horoscopes and more prone to believe in some aspects of the supernatural but a growing number of us prefer facts to faith. We're well-versed in the need for evidence, for randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials. We know about confirmation bias, anecdotal 'evidence', dodgy statistics and the whole gamut of skeptical weapons against bad thinking.

Celebrating these women is just as important as celebrating women on the front line of science. You can read, write, discuss, think and get the message out whether you're demolishing alt med claims, investigating MMR, knickers that claim to detox you, paranormal daftness, faith healing, witchcraft allegations, Intelligent Design - you name it, we can hold our own in challenging it.

We use this way of thinking in other areas too - law, policy, the media, healthcare and of course in every day life. It's the appliance of science. And we have a laugh while we're doing it.

Skeptics are not a bunch of beardie wierdies drinking real ale, wearing sci-fi T shirts and mumbling about conspiracy theories. Some of us have really nice shoes.

Ada Lovelace Day March 24

From the Ada Lovelace website:

Ada Lovelace Day is an international day of blogging (videologging, podcasting, comic drawing etc.!) to draw attention to the achievements of women in technology and science.

Women’s contributions often go unacknowledged, their innovations seldom mentioned, their faces rarely recognised. We want you to tell the world about these unsung heroines, whatever they do. It doesn’t matter how new or old your blog is, what gender you are, what language you blog in, or what you normally blog about – everyone is invited. Just sign the pledge and publish your blog post any time on Wednesday 24th March 2010.

Ada, Countess of Lovelace, born on 10th December 1815, the only child of Lord Byron and his wife, Annabella was one of the world’s first computer programmers, and one of the first people to see computers as more than just a machine for doing sums. She wrote programmes for Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine, a general-purpose computing machine, despite the fact that it was never built. She also wrote the very first description of a computer and of software. She died, aged only 36, on 27th November 1852, of cancer and bloodletting by her physicians.

The first Ada Lovelace Day was held on 24th march 2009 and was a huge success. It attracted nearly 2000 signatories to the pledge and 2000 more people who signed up on Facebook. Over 1200 people added their post URL to the Ada Lovelace Day 2009 mash-up. The day itself was covered by BBC News Channel, BBC.co.uk, Radio 5 Live, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Metro, Computer Weekly, and VNUnet, as well as hundreds of blogs worldwide.

Motes and beams

Skeptics have pretty good antenna in areas like the paranormal, 'alternative' medicine, bad science and dodgy journalism. Scientific methodology and the vocabulary of doubt come easily.

But when it comes to other areas that are not obviously in the skeptic domain, the radar can fail and we can be as irrational and gullible as someone who believes their great aunt is talking to them from Beyond The Veil. There are areas where the appliance of science fails us.

It's not just true believers who allow faith and hope to triumph over reason. We are all more gullible than we like to admit and we all have blind spots. I will be the first to admit to this; I really do believe that one day I will find a mascara that will make my lashes five times thicker. And I'm a sucker for adverts about new brands of crisps.

We could all benefit from turning our skeptical eye inwards sometimes.

Skeptics buy shoes that are lovely but not quite the right size, consigning ourselves to months of plasters and the possibility of seriously lumpy feet. Skeptics really really need that huge screen TV when the money would be better spent at the dentist. We hope against all reason that our team will win or believe that we'll find a parking space in the middle of town on a Saturday night. How many times has the mother of all hangovers made us swear never to drink again? Is any of this rational, evidence-based behaviour?

We may laugh at adverts that say 'Pay attention, here comes the science' but we all buy body products. It's not just women whose rationality fails here - how many blades does a razor need?Are we loyal to our toothpaste brand because our double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed testing has proved it to be the best, because our mum used to buy it or because it's on offer? It's only toothpaste, after all. We may do comparison shopping for expensive things but for cheaper ones, convenience and habit often rule.

Technology is another area where rationality may fail. In some cases it fills a need, in others fashion and marketing create a 'need' and then feed it. Some upgrades improve functionality, some products improve efficiency or quality of life - and some do nothing more than run up the overdraft or stop you feeling old and left behind. It's technology, it's the future, look how shiny it is.

Then there is dieting. Skeptical methods may tell us that Atkins does not work and may well do harm but how many of us have failed to lose weight or put it back on again? We know how to lose weight, we know the science - calories in versus calories out - but reason fails in the face of pizza, beer and yes, crisps. And of course, some of us smoke.

How many good skeptics who are the first to spot confirmation bias or the ideomotor effect join a gym only to stop going after a couple of months while the cross-trainers we spent too much on get worn down the pub? The average monthly spend on a gym is £41. 95 and most gyms tie members in for a year. Some research shows that 80% of people stop going regularly - but are still paying - within eight weeks. Joining a gym is often an act of blind faith. The money could be better spent on other things - like shoes. Oh, and justify it any way you want, Wii is not exercise.

But it's when it comes to other people we're most likely to wander from the straight and narrow.

It's human nature to like people who are like us. There is good evolutionary sense in this, it bonds us to partners, kin and allies. We're much less likely to disbelieve or think badly of someone we like than someone we don't, even though common sense says this is nonsense. We cut friends more slack, ignoring or excusing flaws in people we love that drive us mad in others. Until the flaws start to really annoy us and we wonder how we ever found them charming. Or we wonder why they don't find our little habits so cute any more.

Instinct puts blinkers on everyone; a skeptic in love is no more rational than a true believer. The stats about how many marriages fail, how many people cheat and the costs of child support are bandied about in the media. But we hope, we have faith it will be different for us and we believe that this time we have chosen well because not to is to be cynical and alone. No one wants that and no one wants to take a step back and analyse someone's pros and cons before getting involved. Even if we did want to, instinct (or lust) would foil us.

Everyone succumbs to flattery sometimes, becoming willing accomplices in our own deception, wanting to be told that our bums don't look big in this, that the bald patch doesn't show or that size doesn't matter. Women pad their bras and buy magic knickers. Men put on a black T shirt, look in the mirror, suck in the gut and pat themselves on the back.

It's human nature; being completely rational and skeptical all the time is not possible - or even desirable. If we were, life would be pretty dull and predictable. Even Mr Spock couldn't be 100% logical and Data wanted an emotion chip so he could be a real boy.

We're all human, we all make mistakes, we all get fooled and fool ourselves. Nor should it be any other way, even if we do try to minimise the failures. Remember that Bible quote about motes and beams?

UPDATE: Some people are misreading this as excusing beliefs in the supernatural or 'alternative' medicine. Or that I'm saying all mistaken perceptions are equal so we should just shut up.

To spell it out for them: try to see people as individuals, not as targets or sets of behaviours and beliefs to be corrected. You can't explain the facts to someone if you've already alienated them. A little empathy goes a long way.

Most people, on the other hand, got that first time through.