I'm a big fan of scientific skepticism, meaning that I do not accept statements as true without the scientific evidence to back them up. I also happen to be a theist. Since there is a very strong vein of antitheism in scientific skepticism, I thought I'd start off with a discussion on why skeptics need to be less dismissive of theism, ordered from least to most nitpicky.
Note: I use the term "theistic skeptics" to describe people like me, who love both science and religion. There is already a term "skeptical theists." Those are people who solve the problem of how an omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent god could allow gratuitous evil to exist by saying that we mere mortals have no way of judging whether some particular evil is gratuitous. Totally different thing.
1. Theistic skeptics have practice separating science and superstition
Theistic skeptics are [hopefully] aware of the difference between knowledge based in reason and belief based in faith. The most prevalent form of superstition today is pseudoscience. Pseudoscientists try to sound valid by using real scientific terms, such as toxins and immunity. For someone who accepts science but is not educated in it, it can be difficult to know which claims are actually scientific and which are pseudoscientific.
Theism can be very useful here. When your religion is obsessed with ritual purity, hearing someone talk about keeping their body/their children's bodies "pure" of chemicals sets off a 1,000-klaxon alarm.
2. The ethical arguments against woo are just as powerful as the scientific
Obviously, you do not need religion to be an ethical person. But science is not an ethical system. That is why we have ethics boards to approve human research and certain medical decisions. Pseudoscience is not only scientifically wrong; it is morally wrong.
When you say you won't vaccinate because vaccine-preventable diseases are only dangerous to children who are not healthy, what you are implicitly saying is that you are okay with unhealthy (imperfect?) children dying preventable deaths. When you frame breastfeeding as essential to health and to mother-child bonding, you are simultaneously denying women autonomy over their own breasts and implying that women whose bodies cannot support a growing infant are worse mothers.
The appeal to nature is not merely a fallacy; it is deeply ableist.
3. Antitheists lose respect when they make ignorant comments about religion
You know what's really annoying? When you are an expert in oncology, you are up-to-date on all the latest research on the genetic component of cancer, and some shmuck comes along telling your patients that they brought cancer on themselves through bad diet and can fix it with coffee enemas. Or when you are a biologist and all your major discoveries have been built on the assumption that evolution exists, and some shmuck comes along and says that dinosaur fossils were placed by God to test our faith.
You know what's equally annoying? When you've read multiple ancient and medieval commentaries on Genesis that state outright that the creation story clearly isn't meant to be understood as scientific truth since daylight precedes the sun's existence by 3 days, and some schmuck comes along saying that evolution disproves the entire Bible. Or when you spend a month learning about what it really means when we talk about monotheism, which turns into a whole discussion on how monotheistic faiths differ in their understanding of the nature of God and the universe, and then Richard Dawkins writes a book where he devotes one paragraph to saying that monotheists are dumb because why is one god any different than two.
4. Antitheism in the skeptic community belies Christian privilege
The distinction between religion and culture is never absolute, even in Christian countries, but it is completely meaningless if you belong to a tribal religion. As a result, there are many religions, of which Judaism is probably the largest, where getting rid of religion would essentially require total cultural annihilation.
Note: I use the term "theistic skeptics" to describe people like me, who love both science and religion. There is already a term "skeptical theists." Those are people who solve the problem of how an omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent god could allow gratuitous evil to exist by saying that we mere mortals have no way of judging whether some particular evil is gratuitous. Totally different thing.
1. Theistic skeptics have practice separating science and superstition
Theistic skeptics are [hopefully] aware of the difference between knowledge based in reason and belief based in faith. The most prevalent form of superstition today is pseudoscience. Pseudoscientists try to sound valid by using real scientific terms, such as toxins and immunity. For someone who accepts science but is not educated in it, it can be difficult to know which claims are actually scientific and which are pseudoscientific.
Theism can be very useful here. When your religion is obsessed with ritual purity, hearing someone talk about keeping their body/their children's bodies "pure" of chemicals sets off a 1,000-klaxon alarm.
2. The ethical arguments against woo are just as powerful as the scientific
Obviously, you do not need religion to be an ethical person. But science is not an ethical system. That is why we have ethics boards to approve human research and certain medical decisions. Pseudoscience is not only scientifically wrong; it is morally wrong.
When you say you won't vaccinate because vaccine-preventable diseases are only dangerous to children who are not healthy, what you are implicitly saying is that you are okay with unhealthy (imperfect?) children dying preventable deaths. When you frame breastfeeding as essential to health and to mother-child bonding, you are simultaneously denying women autonomy over their own breasts and implying that women whose bodies cannot support a growing infant are worse mothers.
The appeal to nature is not merely a fallacy; it is deeply ableist.
3. Antitheists lose respect when they make ignorant comments about religion
You know what's really annoying? When you are an expert in oncology, you are up-to-date on all the latest research on the genetic component of cancer, and some shmuck comes along telling your patients that they brought cancer on themselves through bad diet and can fix it with coffee enemas. Or when you are a biologist and all your major discoveries have been built on the assumption that evolution exists, and some shmuck comes along and says that dinosaur fossils were placed by God to test our faith.
You know what's equally annoying? When you've read multiple ancient and medieval commentaries on Genesis that state outright that the creation story clearly isn't meant to be understood as scientific truth since daylight precedes the sun's existence by 3 days, and some schmuck comes along saying that evolution disproves the entire Bible. Or when you spend a month learning about what it really means when we talk about monotheism, which turns into a whole discussion on how monotheistic faiths differ in their understanding of the nature of God and the universe, and then Richard Dawkins writes a book where he devotes one paragraph to saying that monotheists are dumb because why is one god any different than two.
4. Antitheism in the skeptic community belies Christian privilege
The distinction between religion and culture is never absolute, even in Christian countries, but it is completely meaningless if you belong to a tribal religion. As a result, there are many religions, of which Judaism is probably the largest, where getting rid of religion would essentially require total cultural annihilation.
No comments:
Post a Comment