I met a fellow atheist today, quite unexpectedly, while at a Hospital visit. Part of my job entails visits to the Mental Health Ward, talking to either patients or new staff. We have quite a bit of staff turnover in almost every profession in Alice Springs, more so in high stress positions.
So today I delivered my spiel to the new recruit, a charming, mature woman with a fair bit of travel under her belt. We talked about one of the programs I run (this particular program is historically Christian -I run a secular group) and the topic of my Atheism came up. She mentioned that she too was an Atheist ( and living with a born again Christian – i think there’s a sitcom in their somewhere) we talked briefly on religious belief and how for some people that’s all they have to hold on to.
The conversation meandered to how she came to be in the Northern Territory, and it involved a psychic. Now this is a bit of a milestone for me in that it’s the first atheist I have met who isn’t highly Skeptical in the big “S” sense.
She related the story about how good this Psychic had been, recalling for me the phrases the psychic had used and how she had brought up peoples names from the past, people that she had forgotten – nothing specific of course.
It is interesting how you perspective changes when you have trained yourself to be skeptical, when you are aware of how humans naturally infuse meaning, how the psychic makes a statement and we fit it to our preconceptions, our ideas of ourselves. Nothing the woman recalled gave me pause to think – “Now I don’t have an explanation for that” Indeed some of what she recalled was so blatantly textbook cold reading example that I had an internal dialogue rattling off explanations.
So my question is how many of you are Atheists who have atheist friends who are not highly skeptical?
Related posts:
- The price of skepticism? Two days away from the internets and suddenly Australian Skepticism...
- Welcome “ a Nadder!” to the ANZAB crew a Nadder has joined ANZAB (Australian and New Zealand Atheist...
- Embiggen Books : An Oasis of Science and Skepticism I live rurally, the nearest town is some 30 km...
Loading ...
Just wondering if they are all in Adelaide – something funny in the water down there
90's, you sure it wasn't the 80's – we had a local Ninja clan here indeed we still do. Actually Martial arts is one area we woo still persists strongly.
I can't think of any atheist friends who aren't skeptical, but I have a few family members who are skeptical and aren't atheists. In fact, that's what I thought the title of your post might be referring to.
Of course when I say 'skeptical' I mean they're skeptical about everything except their religious beliefs.
S would you say small s skeptical? Would they be likely to fall under the "sway" of a well practised cold reader?
Definitely small 's' skeptical.
I don't think they'd fall for cold reading, but believing that Jesus' return to Earth is imminent? Apparently they'll buy that.
Is that because psychics are "of the devil"
Or do you think its the typical, human resistance to turning skepticism towards our cherised core beliefs?
Definitely the latter. It's all about faith.
I would actually consider myself an atheist who isn't a Skeptic (and I'm a friend of Matt's). I think of myself as fairly skeptical and analytical about most things, but I feel that I have more "wiggle room" for the imaginary (if you like) than a capital S Skeptic would. I certainly have no problem believing the faith stories of others. If someone says they had a religious experience I am willing to accept that, even if I don't believe in their god or system of faith.
I am, though. a chronic fence sitter, so it's probably more a reflection of that than anything else.
Hey Rob
Thanks for dropping by.
I think that probably 3-4 years ago I would have been similar in my skepticism to yourself, though at that time I was also a Deist. I enjoy hearing the experiences of others in the hope that there is something of interest there something that science hasn't begun to unravel. Since becoming a big S skeptic though, learning about the psychology of deception, how are perception is altered etc I find the workings behind the so called mystical/religious experience even more fascinating.
Fence sitting is okay. I tend to fence sit on things that aren't of vital importance or that don't effect me greatly
See I believe that we all get to our happy place in our own way. I am convinced that some people need religion to get there. I'm not one of those people. But I guess, in relation to your last comment, yeah, religion is not important in my life and so my atheism (which leans more towards agnosticism the more I argue with Matt
is kind of a result of the fence-sitting. Where that religion comes from (deception, mis-perception, self delusion or an actual deity) is less important to me than how it makes someone act. Your subject in the hospital used a "psychic" experience to make some pretty important life decisions.
Now that experience could have been nothing more than her being told what she wanted to hear, but it gave her the push she needed to make some decisions.
I have been known to toss a coin to make a decision between 2 choices. But I don't always follow the "advice" of the coins. Sometimes it will come up heads and in my brain I will say "damn, I was hoping it was going to be tails". And in those cases I will choose the tails choice. The coin acts as a way of clearing the mind. (It's why I've always loved I Ching, not because of the prophetic nature of it, or its mysticism, but simply because the ritual that you follow to do it is so meticulous and takes so long that by the time you find which of the generic phrases you are supposed to read, your mind is in a very different place from when it started.)
I guess what I am saying is that while skepticism has its place, so does spirituality.
I like to think I'm as skeptical about Skepticism as I am about anything else, but that's probably just facetiousness.
Thank you for the considered a lengthy reply Rob. It pays to be skeptical of skepticism. All of us have a tendency to defend our understanding of how things come to be and skeptics are no different. There is a subtle danger that in defining oneself as skeptic that you convince yourself that you are smarter more enlightened than the rest of humanity. I try to catch myself when I go from being truly Skeptical to just using skepticism as a vehicle to reinforce my personal understanding of things.
God I hate that word spirituaity
can we chose something else mindfulness, awareness self or otherwise.
See Rob, I think you're more skeptical than you let on. You say you're willing to "believe the faith stories of others" but does that mean believing the stories are actually true, or just believing-that-they-believe-it?
There's a big difference there.
And I think you look at the world in a very skeptical way. Take your I Ching example. That was a very rational and evidence-based argument.
Like Sean, I think the word "spirituality" is far too loaded for that kind of context. Self-awareness is much better.
I don't know. I feel somewhat the same way about religion as I do about Radiohead. When someone tells me how good Radiohead are I no longer say "no, they really are not". I can only say "I don't like them". There's just so many people into that band that I have to at least entertain the possibility that my not getting it is because I am wrong. So yeah sure, when someone talks about religion I believe-that-they-believe it, and while it might not go farther than that, I do often wonder if it's true.
Unlike you, though, I really am willing to accept that stuff can happen without evidence, or without the support of the scientific method. I'm skeptical of that, too.
I also think it's funny that you both don't like the word spirituality. I think it's a good word, as it doesn't hang off any belief system, doesn't imply much beyond "non-scientific" and is less cynical than "imaginary" or even "supernatural" (although I'd be happy to substitute it with supernatural). Self awareness would be a fine word if that's what we are talking about, but I think it actually provides more bias towards the skeptical point of view than "spiritual" does towards the, umm, spiritual POV. Self awareness suggests that it's all quite rational and if only the fools would see then we'd be all in a better place.
I agree that stuff can happen without evidence. My problem with religion is that it involves very specific beliefs that, to my mind, require at least some evidence to justify.
I think what you're describing here is a good skeptical position though, so again you're being more skeptical than you want to admit.
You're saying that you accept the possibility that you may be wrong, but haven't seen enough evidence to convince you that that's the case.
That's a skeptic.
Not sure I understand what you are saying here Rob
Unlike you, though, I really am willing to accept that stuff can happen without evidence, or without the support of the scientific method. Have you got an example? An instance that you can recall?
Skeptical of the scientific method? In what sense? That its the bee knees or are we just talking about realizing it has its flaws but so far its the most successful method for determining facts.
With spiritual are we trying to describe feelings or emotions? I think perhaps the word is used far too often when it would be better to be more specific.
I thought we were looking for a word to describe what religious people feel is beyond science (regardless of whether you actually believe it). So I think spiritual is fine. And you can say "I don't believe in spirituality" because that's your position, but I think it's a perfectly usable word in that sense. I thought that's all we were looking for here. I'm not expecting you to believe in the "spiritual" by using the word. I don't think it works like that.
Can I give you an example? Well no, I can't. I don't have any personal experience in anything spiritual. But I do accept that personal evidence is all that is required (and that's where we get in to terms like awareness and emotion, because one person's religious experience is another's really happy moment). So yeah, I'm having my cake and eating it too by taking that position.
My problem with the scientific method is, I guess a few things. One, from a logical point of view it just goes against the classic syllogism structure. If A then B. A, therefore B. The existence of B doesn't prove or disprove the occurrence of A. However science says "I'm seeing a whole bunch of B here. I wonder if it's A that's causing it. Well when I do a whole bunch of A then B happens, so sure, let's run with that". Which just isn't how logic works.
Science's strength, however, is that someone else can come along and go "what about C?" When I do a bunch of C then we get even MORE B" and then bang – old theory out, new in. While that is, as I say, a strength as it shows that we can grow and accept change, the very fact that someone could do that again, and again and again, just makes me wary of anything that comes up. I listened for a while to WNYC's Radio Lab (which is an excellent science podcast http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/ ) but I found myself often shouting at the car stereo when they would provide minimal evidence of research and start talking about their theories. Often it was a case of "this is a half hour show and we're not going to read out the results of every study that led us to this conclusion" but often you could just tell that their pre-conceived ideas that led them to begin the experiments in the first place led to their conclusions. There was one on cell degeneration in particular that got me thinking. It was in their episode about mortality. I can't find a link, but its in the podcast and it really is a great show.)
So that was a very very long way of me saying "yeah, pretty much I don't think it's the bees knees, regardless of the fact that it's the best we've got". I really am putting a whole bunch of words on your blog today. Matt's been pretty slack on his lately, so you know, it's good to get out and about once in a while.
I thought we were looking for a word to describe what religious people feel is beyond science (regardless of whether you actually believe it). For the purposes of this conversation I think we can agree on this term:D
Can I give you an example? Well no, I can't. I don't have any personal experience in anything spiritual. But I do accept that personal evidence is all that is required (and that's where we get in to terms like awareness and emotion, because one person's religious experience is another's really happy moment). So yeah, I'm having my cake and eating it too by taking that position.
No worries mate just trying to get things clear for myself more than anything. Personal evidence is fine for that person as long as they only see it as personally relevant for them.
You had to mention cake didn't you (bastard – raiding the fridge now):)
Post here as much as you like:)
Actually I don't know about "spirituality" perhaps its too nebulous a term?
I think nebulous is pretty much what we're going for, though, isn't it? If we could pin it down and go "there, that's the fella" then it would probably not be something to be skeptical about.
I don't know if this really counts, but my dad's a politically conservative atheist and he apparently doesn't see the enormous amount of bias and distortion on the FOX News Channel…. He actually asked me to provide examples when I told him my view of the network. Of course, I couldn't, since the bias shows up just about every time Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, and Kelly open their mouths, and because I'm exposed to this almost every day I'm home. It's hard to provide examples when the bias is more in how they talk about everything, rather than it being there in easily-recognizable clumps. It infuriates me.
I suppose so Mark.. What about the way religious issues might be reported on fox. Did they do a story on the so called Atheist Camp Quest. Its perhaps easier to point out that sort of reporting to him as it would probably hit a little closer to home for him.
In our local freethought group, there was a debate raging about alt-med, and some members believe in obvious quackery.
Also, other members in our group believe in conspiracy theories (illuminati, 9-11 truthers, etc).
My current boss is not religious, perhaps even an atheist. They have a strong belief in traditional chinese medicine, why? Because its natural, as a lineage etc all the wrong reasons in my book for accepting a medicine.
Conspiracy theories hmmm. Pattern recognition on steroids
Basically all of my friends at my high school are atheists, and some of them believe, at least in a "not-really-thinking-about-it" kind of way, in alternative medicine. But on the whole, I would say that most of them are skeptics like me, the only difference being that they don't speak out about it and aren't active in their skepticism.
I have yet to come across, in the physical world, people who are atheists but not skeptics. But I can easily see how someone could be – the fact that there's no deity seeing everything doesn't necessarily mean that fairies can't exist.
We had one present at the local Meetup for Perth Atheists!
I was very excited (in the way I get) that I was meeting my very first conspiracy theorist! Apparently Einstein is behind everything going wrong in the world… We were polite, let him have his talk. Then the UWA Physics student essentially pulled his argument to bits.
Odd, haven't heard that one before. Unless its a riff off the old elders of Zion crap. Funny isn't it how these types of people are experts until they actually meet someone who knows what thy are talking about
I'd have to say most of my friends if not all are skeptics and atheists (or at least agnostics). It's not something done on purpose, I don't go out of my way to find people of that type, most of the time I don't realise these characteristics of the person until I've known them for a while.
Most people do have their golden calves though, and that's what I usually put it down to when one is a skeptic but not an atheist or vice versa.
We all have our golden calves to some extent I suppose. Mine is the Carlton Football team, I have faith that the will win the premiership this year.:D
I had a funny incident last year where I sat down with a group of people – a mix of Australians and Americans and all but one were atheists, though we had met several times before we had not known this fact about each other
should that be calfs or calves?
My first question would be "how atheist is she?". I have friends who don't believe there's "God" (Christian, Muslim or Jew) but do believe "there's something out there". As such, they raise their eyebrows at fundy Christians but think "The One" involved genuine psychics and that alternative "medicine" has merit.
Is it really an atheistic position if you believe in spirits?
Technically I guess she is, by the very strictest of definitions. What's a term that encompasses the reject ion (until evidence is presented) of so called supernatural forces?
I've seen this phenomenon also. I think there are some people who are very adamant that there is no god, yet they have some innate need to have faith in "something" and they believe in woo woo, or UFOs or conspiracy theories. Phil Plait wrote about the people who think they are skeptics, but are also vax deniers or global warming deniers. Also, there are fellow atheists who have no belief in a god, but they are very liberal, vegan-environmentalists, to the point that "we are killing Mother Earth", which is kind of a naturalistic religion. They tend to buy into wicca, psychics, crystals and new age woo.
I think, for me, being a good scientist means trying to eliminate bias or at least recognize and adjust for my innate biases that I recognize I won't entirely eliminate. It takes being a good skeptic, who applies skepticism uniformly to all aspects of life. Then, this leads to the natural recognition that there is no need for a god or evidence to support a god. I think being a good skeptic means questioning the motivation of all your choices, and always being open to changing your opinion or rethinking choices in light of new evidence/new knowledge.
I think that as people who have never really studied or been exposed to much science are exposed to science, and learn about the universe, they become more informed skeptics and are less likely to tend to believe "woo woo". Often, my astronomy students have never had any real perspective of their place in the universe, and no one ever question the dogma they grew up with.
Since I've always been a science geek, (yes, I bit the heads off spherical chickens for my PhD thesis defense), it was natural for me to be less religious, but when I "found" the skeptical community, it led to my exploring many areas in my life, and I found clear distinctions between well-thought out skeptical positions and the lazy thinking I had before. Starting to teach science at the college also helped me lose this lazy attitude, since I couldn't just waive hands, I really had to KNOW things. So, I really think that if you take a proactive approach to improving your knowledge and be critical of yourself as much or more than you are of others. When you get to that point, there is really no place for god myths or fairy tales, outside of the theater.
Phil Plait wrote about the people who think they are skeptics, but are also vax deniers or global warming deniers.</>
I think everyone likes to think they are skeptical to a certain degree. I think everyone is to some extent about things that are generally easy to be skeptical about ie 2nd hand car deals. Being big S Skeptical requires some investment of time and self education.
I think being a good skeptic means questioning the motivation of all your choices, and always being open to changing your opinion or rethinking choices in light of new evidence/new knowledge.
Agreed, easier said than done. Had to stop myself the other day, from dismissing a claim out of hand.
I think that as people who have never really studied or been exposed to much science are exposed to science, and learn about the universe, they become more informed skeptics and are less likely to tend to believe "woo woo".
I think that it some times requires a little more than this. I had a reasonable exposure to science in High school ie university entrance Chemistry, loved organic chemistry CRAFT about now of course, and later designing experiments for psychology. But its really only getting involved in skepticism, through self education that has enabled me to consciously skeptical. I simply don't think we educate students enough in critical thinking skills.
but when I "found" the skeptical community, it led to my exploring many areas in my life, and I found clear distinctions between well-thought out skeptical positions and the lazy thinking I had before.
A big "me too!" here
So, I really think that if you take a proactive approach to improving your knowledge and be critical of yourself as much or more than you are of others. When you get to that point, there is really no place for god myths or fairy tales, outside of the theater..
You point here is excellent and oddly reminiscent of KIpling's "IF".
Phil Plait wrote about the people who think they are skeptics, but are also vax deniers or global warming deniers.
I think everyone likes to think they are skeptical to a certain degree. I think everyone is to some extent about things that are generally easy to be skeptical about ie 2nd hand car deals. Being big S Skeptical requires some investment of time and self education.
I think being a good skeptic means questioning the motivation of all your choices, and always being open to changing your opinion or rethinking choices in light of new evidence/new knowledge.
Agreed, easier said than done. Had to stop myself the other day, from dismissing a claim out of hand.
I think that as people who have never really studied or been exposed to much science are exposed to science, and learn about the universe, they become more informed skeptics and are less likely to tend to believe "woo woo".
I think that it some times requires a little more than this. I had a reasonable exposure to science in High school ie university entrance Chemistry, loved organic chemistry CRAFT about now of course, and later designing experiments for psychology. But its really only getting involved in skepticism, through self education that has enabled me to consciously skeptical. I simply don't think we educate students enough in critical thinking skills.
but when I "found" the skeptical community, it led to my exploring many areas in my life, and I found clear distinctions between well-thought out skeptical positions and the lazy thinking I had before.
A big "me too!" here
So, I really think that if you take a proactive approach to improving your knowledge and be critical of yourself as much or more than you are of others. When you get to that point, there is really no place for god myths or fairy tales, outside of the theater..
You point here is excellent and oddly reminiscent of KIpling's "IF".
"They tend to buy into wicca, psychics, crystals and new age woo. "
Just out of curiosity, how on earth do these people manage to reconcile being an atheist with wicca? In my understanding wicca is a duotheistic/pantheistic religion whose followers generally believe in both a god and a goddess. I know that there is a good deal of diversity amongst wiccans but I thought that theism was pretty much a defining feature. O_o
"Since I've always been a science geek, (yes, I bit the heads off spherical chickens for my PhD thesis defense)…"
Punk rock!
I don't consider myself to be an atheist. I usually describe myself as either Discordian or agnostic if people want the short version of my religious beliefs. At any rate, I have a very secular value-system.
I've encountered a number of atheists who are surprisingly close-minded. In my experience, it usually doesn't manifest as an uncritical acceptance of what is commonly termed "the paranormal". It's often about philosophical, ethical or scientific issues. For example some of them will vitriolically reject the existence of anything that might be termed a god, but nonetheless uncritically accept traditional Christian or other values. For example, I recall having a particularly heated argument with one individual who was adamant that suicide is morally wrong, but couldn't offer any rational explanation as to why.
Then there are the atheists who give other atheists a bad name: The ones who uncritically accept the non-existence of god/the supernatural. It's one thing to take the view that since there is currently insufficient evidence to support the existence of "god", one should proceed on the assumption that no such thing exists. It is another to close one's mind to the possibility that things might exist that cannot be proven to exist or explained by the current body of scientific knowledge.
I guess it all comes back to the idea that atheism is a term which only refers to a single aspect of a person's world view.
I vary between calling myself an atheist and calling myself an agnostic. Usually I lean more towards the softer "agnostic" after I have had a discussion with people I consider more "hard-core" in their atheism.
To me the distinction lies in a leap of faith. Agnostics, in my definition, do not believe in god. Atheists on the other hand believe there is no god. The difference is that atheists have made the leap of faith required to say that "no evidence to support" equals "non existence of". I haven't made that leap.
Having said all that I often describe myself as a lapsed atheist, just because it was a funny line from an obscure Monty Python sketch.
To my understanding Agnosticism refers to knowledge, Gnostics claims to know agnostics are either saying they don't know or that they can't possibly know, or probably will never know. Its to do with how you claim to arrive at your Atheism or Theism
agnostics are either saying they don't know or that they can't possibly know.
I agree.
My comment above (which was intended to be a response to Morphine's but my browser did weird things) was more to say that I agree with Morphine that there are atheists who either claim to "know" or at least are so damn sure that it's tantamount to knowledge, that god doesn't exist, and that this position is a step beyond agnosticism and requires a faith of sorts.
No worries.
I do think though that for all practical purposes the gods presented so far are figmentsof mens imagination. So in a practical sense I know those gods don't exist. I always think that discussions on god should start with the defining of exactly what god is. The term has become so nebulous so encompassing, that it has become almost meaningles
This is precisely why atheism conversions should not be considered a goal for atheists, but rather conversions to critical thinking and rationality. The atheism will probably follow, but if not, establishing a solid foundation for thinking should negate most of the negatives of religious belief, like dogma driven actions and imposing on others.
I can help but think if we focussed a bit more on critical thinking that the world would be a better place.
I actually had a discussion with my cousin's husband the other day, whee it became apparent that though he's an atheist, he's into conspiracy theories. He actually believes that no-one landed on the moon, and his reasoning, get it, is that they haven't done it since! He actually thinks that, if they have done it, why don't they do it again, to shut all the conspiracy theorists up? I shook my head in despair, I really did.
I wonder if this stems from a general anti-authoritarian, anti-government stance? Is he be all other measures normal:D