Category Archives: Critical Thinking

The science of people like me

Posted on by

Racism, sexism, ageism, the reasons and ways we judge people are often so off-base its a wonder we get anything done at all. Often we label people who we see making these misjudgments: stupid, uneducated, ignorant… but I think that misses the point.

We tend to like people with whom we think we have something in common, no matter how trivial the commonality. After reading about Rasputin, whose spell over the Russian royal family ended only with his assassination in 1916, students were more likely to view the mad monk positively if told they shared his birthday. We rate faces as more trustworthy if the images have been modified by computers to resemble us.

We’re tribal, we look favorably on people who resemble us, while the alien, the different, the strange, is a visceral danger sign in our primitive brains.

Conformity, or groupthink—our tendency to do and even think like others—represents one of our greatest vulnerabilities.

What is worse, when other people make these mistakes, we tend to go along.

So how do we fight our group-think re-enforced stupidities? I keep hearing my fellow atheists talk about education and critical thinking, but people have to want these things. Simply telling people to smarten up never has much affect.

I was thinking about this the other day, and it all seems to come back to the fact that what we really need to do is not teach critical thinking, but SELL critical thinking. Who do people listen to these days? Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck… they aren’t the most knowledgeable guys, but they know how to sell their ideas. We need to take advantage of how we are all stupid, and use it to our advantage. Some of that isn’t going to be so palatable… sciencey types are often more concerned with accuracy rather than communication, but these are the skills needed

Key factors are humor, surprise, eye contact and absolute confidence

Being skeptical, serious-mined, critically thinking, introverts is not enough. If we’re going to do more than just preach to the choir, we have to engage people, in ways they respond to, not just the ways we wish they would.

In defense of PZ

Posted on by

While I am not usually one to voice my opinion when it comes to controversy (/sarcasm), I feel compelled to say something in defense of PZ Myers’ recent flap about dictionary atheists. In a nutshell:

Dictionary Atheists. Boy, I really do hate these guys. You’ve got a discussion going, talking about why you’re an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug wanker comes along and announces that “Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term.” As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. Dumbasses.

I had the great pleasure of meeting PZ Myers in person when he came to Vancouver back in August, and we had an in-depth discussion about this very issue, because I wasn’t sure I agreed with him:

My feelings were a bit hurt, because I have been advocating that exact position. However, as I was to discuss with him later, he makes an important point, which is the basic underscoring of his presentation – namely, that Atheists (note the capital A) dobelieve in things. We’re not Atheists by accident, or because we haven’t yet heard how awesome YahwAlladdha is, but because we reject superstition and appeals to invisible authority as a basis for building a functioning society. We believe that evidence, reason, and an abiding respect for humanity is a much higher standard to which human beings should be held than the fear of a paternal sky-genie.

When explained like that, it’s actually a fairly straightforward and reasonable position. Atheists aren’t atheists simply due to the accident of not believing in God, but because we believe in other things – these things are what brought us to our atheism. Put another way, atheism is the result of a series of positive beliefs, not simply a hazard of non-belief. Well… not being a community that enjoys even slight criticism, atheists have been dumping all over a strawman version of PZ’s position. I am going to make the assumption that this comes from a place of genuine misunderstanding rather than malice, and (as is my custom) will try to expand on it a bit using an analogy.

Imagine for a moment that your formerly sexually active friend announces to you that she is now celibate. Despite having a plethora of convenient, enjoyable and safe sexual opportunities, she is choosing instead to abstain from sexual contact altogether. Surprised at this turn of events, you inquire as to why she is becoming celibate.

You: So why are you celibate?
Her: I’m celibate because I’m not having sex with anyone
You: Yes, that is the definition of celibacy. Thanks for that. What I mean is, why have you chosen to abstain from sex?
Her: Stop trying to make celibacy mean more than it does! It is simply a person who does not have sex!

While she is technically true, her response is a tautology that in no way addresses the spirit of your question. You are inquiring as to the event or value or other stimulus that convinced her that celibacy was the way to go, not for a definition of the phrase.

If you’ll allow me to take this thought experiment a bit further, imagine you were yourself a person who is a staunch advocate of the benefits of celibacy. For a bunch of positive reasons, you are passionate about the merits of living a celibate lifestyle, even touring the country to give talks and seminars about why celibacy is a good thing. Hearing your friend give such a shallow definition of something you care deeply about would probably irk you more than a little. You might even be moved to call her a “dumbass” for failing to recognize that she herself has a variety of positive reasons for her choice but instead prefers to spout of a meaningless truism.

Atheism is the same way. We are not atheists because the dictionary definition describes us – we have a set of positive beliefs about the world, the importance of truth, the value of skepticism when it comes to religious claims, a whole variety of things. To deny that, or paint over it because there is a dictionary definition that is more parsimonious is a shallow representation of the real set of values that we undoubtedly share.

There is a reasonable criticism of PZ’s position, which is this: many people aren’t even aware of what the definition of an atheist is. They mischaracterize us as people who have an active belief in the absence of a deity, which is only true of some of us. The majority (I would suspect) simply doubt the claim that there is a supernatural entity that governs the universe, and live their lives as though there isn’t. When someone asks you “why are you an atheist?”, they may in fact need to be told what an atheist actually is. However, the question of why is not merely an invitation for a description of the population – it is asking for a set of values; a reason for your atheism.

But of course, the position has all but been completely subsumed by the rancor and arm-flailing that inevitably occurs whenever someone takes a poke at atheists. I am incredibly proud to be part of a community that doesn’t take criticism sitting down and is willing to fight for its identity; however, we should not let that passion consume our good sense when an idea is put before us.

Brands vs Religions

Posted on by

A research paper by Tel Aviv University professor Ron Shachar examines the relationship between brands and religion. He finds a correlation between brand loyalty and religious identification.

From the introduction:

We seek to demonstrate that religiosity and brand reliance are negatively related because both of them allow individuals to express aspects of themselves to others. One specific aspect that both brands and religion are well‐positioned to express is a sense of self‐worth. We argue for a compensatory mechanism such that when an individual expresses her self‐worth via one medium (be it brands or religion), she needs the other medium less. Thus, brands and religion function as substitutes in expressing self‐worth.

Most atheists have no trouble equating religions with any other business but the negative correlation between brand loyalty and religious belief surprised me. Are we really more brand loyal than our religious neighbours?

We all have our favourite brands and the study implies our choices aren’t nearly as rational as we’d like to admit.

I’m in the process of buying a new Camaro even though I know it isn’t a very practical car. Am I suffering from brand loyalty since I worked for GM for several summers while I was in school? Or are there other ways to rationalize my choices? A philosopher of science could argue I’m biologically determined towards old-fashioned machoism. A postmodernist could say it’s a manifestation of the oedipal complex, with the car acting as the phallus. Whatever the reasons, we attempt to rationalize our consumer choices in a similar way as the religious try to rationalize theirs so relating the two seems reasonable.

Read the entire paper if you can get it. I don’t know the copyright status so I can’t leak my copy (but please feel free to contact your MP to complain about copyright laws).

“Cultural Sensitivity” meets clear stupidity

Posted on by

It’s been a while since I talked about one of my first pet topics, the burqa bans going on in various places in the world. The point I laboured to make in those early articles was that there may be some specific circumstances under which it is better for society to brook some contravention of its rules in the name of being tolerant of practices imported from other cultures. This is particularly true of Canada, with its wide variety of cultural groups. If we want Canada to remain a place where groups from all over the world can feel at home, then we have to occasionally put aside our discomfiture toward “the other”.

But other times, “the other” is stupid and there needn’t be any accommodation:

Plans for a hospice on the University of British Columbia campus have been put on hold after some neighbourhood residents said the proposed facility offended their cultural sensitivities around death and dying.

“It is all about cultural sensitivity,” said Ms. Fan, a Chinese-born immigrant who lives in a high-rise near the proposed hospice site. “We came here as new immigrants with our own belief system. And in our beliefs, it is impossible for us to have dying people in our backyard.”

The main gist of this argument is that many Chinese-born immigrants share a cultural taboo about death, feeling that it brings bad luck and will spoil marriages and businesses and all sorts of other pursuits. Building a hospice in a neighbourhood with many immigrants from this area lacks cultural sensitivity for such beliefs.

My response: fuck your superstition.

This proposed building is on the campus of the University of British Columbia. UBC has a right to build whatever legal structure they like on their grounds. UBC also has a hospital on its grounds. News flash: people die in hospitals every day. People also die in car accidents, stabbings, from heart attacks… the list goes on ad infinitum. Death is a part of life – in fact, death is the thing that makes life precious. If your beliefs are in conflict with biological fact, it is not the responsibility of the rest of the world to move in line with your beliefs; it’s your responsibility to figure out a way to deal with it.

I feel passionately about this issue, as someone who works in cancer research. The majority of people who pursue hospice care suffer from terminal cancer. At the end of the course of this disease, patients are often in near-constant pain that gets limited (or no) relief through the use of drugs and radiation. The idea behind hospice care is to allow the dying person to maintain a bit of dignity and comfort. It is the sign of a compassionate and caring people when the sick and dying are cared for. Adequate hospice care means that people are not languishing in long-term care facilities, at home, or worst of all in a hospital, unable to access sufficient relief from their symptoms as their bodies shut down.

A very good friend of mine worked in a hospice on a co-op term. She would be able to speak much more eloquently and passionately than I can about what a great job hospice care does of improving the quality of life of people who are lucky enough to have the opportunity to die there. I say ‘lucky’ in full awareness of the fact that it’s not exactly ‘lucky’ to get cancer, but since there are far fewer spaces than there is demand for those spaces, getting in is indeed a stroke of luck.

I hope nobody would accuse me of being a person who is not sensitive to the fact that not everyone sees the world the same way. I am aware that different groups have different ideas about life, and that some issues hit people more viscerally than others. However, in this case we’re talking about conflating superstition with the real suffering of real people. The proximity of death has zero effect on whether or not your business is lucky – the flourishing funeral home business is perhaps a counter-example. People who work in hospitals around dying people can maintain happy relationships, and in some cases the death of a close family member can bring people closer together. To suggest that dying people should put relief of their suffering on hold because you’re afraid of the dark is the height of childish arrogance.

We should make our decisions based on what is real, not what spares the delicate feelings of stupid people.

Support skeptical education in Uganda

Posted on by

Yes, it’s been a while since I’ve posted. I blame the holidays and then a subsequent lack of motivation to write, but hopefully that will slowly dissipate and I’ll return to my regular frequency.

For now, care of the Atheist Alliance International, I direct your attention to their commendable efforts to rid Uganda of superstition by building a school and teaching critical thinking.

Uganda has recently made headlines for its abhorrent attempt to enact a bill to make homosexuality a crime, punishable by death. While we may lament pseudoscience in Canada like Wi-Fi fears and homeopathy, they are small fish in comparison to the damage that this bill is presenting.

Since schools aren’t free, they need your support to help continue the fight against dangerous superstition and intolerance, so go and donate what you can today.

Vegetarians and Irrationality

Posted on by

Hemant Mehta explains his position on vegetarianism, one of the more fascinating reoccurring topics amongst the atheist crowd. What I found most interesting was his avoidance of the hard logic and rational reasoning often used by atheists to justify their beliefs. Basing on his experiences growing up, Hemant claims to remain vegetarian simply because it feels good and not because of any elaborate, well-thought-out position. These kinds of emotional and irrational responses are rare among atheists, which some will argue is a good thing, but as our arguments enter main stream, we need to ensure our methods are properly tuned to the audience we’re trying to reach.

Many atheists don’t eat meat and think they’re doing so for ethical or healthy reasons but because of major flaws in these arguments, avoiding meat ultimately becomes an emotional decision held together by cognitive dissonance, similar to reasons why people remain religious. I don’t want to necessarily equate the two because even when the facts are debatable the arguments for vegetarianism are sometimes based in reality, unlike any argument for religion.

Emotional decisions tend to frustrate and annoy the overtly science-focused atheists among us but it’s important to remember that in order to combat our religious opponents we need to be able to speak in their language. Arguments from emotions are more powerful to some than arguments from facts so by tapping into own own irrationality, we might be able to form more appealing arguments against those with whom we disagree.

In order to continue our rise in power and numbers, atheists need to admit, and ultimately encourage, the idea that believing in something just because it makes you feel good is ok.

Hemant’s position on vegetarianism is irrational and he admits it and I think that’s fine. I don’t see any reason to try rationalizing what is essentially an irrational belief. I eat meat because it tastes good. I don’t have any other reasons. If I did, I’d only be trying to rationalize my emotional response so I’m happy just keeping it simple.

To the same extent, I’m an atheist because I find it moral and fulfilling and not because of the abundant facts and logic at my disposal. If any evidence of God’s existence poofed into reality, I am more likely to believe I‘ve gone crazy rather than change my opinion, which, by any definition, makes my atheism irrational.

Atheists have a bad habit of trying to rationalize irrational topics and I think it makes us look immature. We need more people like Hemant to admit that it’s ok to be irrational sometimes. Since we’re all irrational in some way, we should admit it and try to use it to our advantage.

Science and that other thing

Posted on by

Recently, I got encouraged by a friend…. damn you… to check out the Point of Inquiry podcast. I have listened to it on occasion, but I’m not a regular. This isn’t to say its not a good podcast, I’m just quite behind on the podcasts that I already have on my ipod… it’ll be a while before I’m caught up with all of them… and now I’m in even worse shape.

While I was on the site, I came across a recent podcast with Chris Mooney interviewing Massimo Pigliucci on his book: Nonsense on Stilts.

Edit:
Earlier interview on POI
For good reason podcast

Now, I should say, apart from actually blogging on this site, I’m not much for reading blogs, so although I’d heard the man’s name before, I didn’t know anything about him, nor did I know he has a blog… which you should check out, if you are ignorant like me: Rationallyspeaking and the podcast… and no I haven’t gotten to that yet.

I know, I’m a bad atheist. Anyway, I was really impressed by his knowledge of the philosophy of science, his ability to communicate it with clarity, as well as his no nonsense style, so I downloaded the audio book of Nonsense on Stilts.

A pet peeve of mine has always been when science-minded atheists start talking about philosophy, or even the philosophy of science, as if a degree in biology or physics makes them an expert. Sorry, there is a lot more to it than that, quite a lot more. Massimo Pigliucci knows his stuff… and does a good job of explaining it. I’m still only halfway through the audiobook, but I highly recommend it to anyone interested in science, the philosophy of science and skepticism. For me, it was like a breath of fresh air. A thoroughly enjoyable…. ‘read’.

And yes, I’m still a postmodernist… we’re not all completely EVIL, just mostly.

Majority to Minority: Shut the Hell Up!

Posted on by

By Andrew Komar

Tom Sears has a new op-ed up in the Daily Star proclaiming that the numbers of the atheist movement ‘doom us to irrelevancy’. I’m not going to spend my time here debunking the numerous attacks, misconceptions and smears against non-theists, but the mere fact that Sears felt it necessary to write it is yet another example of the persecution complex that many Christians seem to have.


Sears mentions the American Atheist recent billboard put up in New Jersey- The “You Know its a Myth” campaign, as yet another example of our shrillness. For the record, the stated purpose of that particular campaign was to reach out to closeted atheists, which has NOTHING to do with Christians. Here are their words :

Millions of atheists are closeted, choosing to go along to get along, and feigning religion to their friends, family, and coworkers. American Atheists understands the pressure to fit in, but we maintain that for people to love you, they must know the real you.

Evidently, Sears thinks the stated motives of the campaign are ‘really’ an attack on Christianity. Look, sir, if your faith is such that a billboard challenging it is enough to destroy it, you must not have had much there in the first place. And if that was the case, you’re lucky that Bill Donahue and the Catholics are there to reassure you on the other side of the tunnel with this billboard:

I applaud these billboards for reaching out to this silent minority. Whether the size of that minority is 3% (as repeatedly asserted by Sears) or closer to 30% the fact is that atheists are not nearly as organized as our religious brothers and sisters. Lacking any cohesive ideology beyond an agreement that there is probably no god(s), we are a diverse group, with many different reasons for that general conclusion. Believe it or not, Mr Sears, but there is no atheist religion. We’re human- and we crave a community that understands us. The billboards are a (repeatedly stated as such) effort to reach out and build that community.

If your a Christian and you read the billboard, I don’t expect you to magically lose your faith. For all I care, you are welcome to continue believing in Jesus, God or Santa Claus; they are all the same in my books. However, when we have the audacity to speak up for ourselves, I’d be nice if we weren’t challenged at every step by the majority that already has every damn privilege.

As for ‘ tear[ing] down one more longstanding tradition and belief’, I’ve never met any atheists who are actually interested in getting rid of Christmas. I happen to love Christmas, the celebration of which obviously predates Christianity.. The midwinter celebration is a human tradition as old as civilization- why shouldn’t we want to pull together and celebrate warmth and fellowship during the darkest days of the year? If you’d like to claim that it’s all about Jesus, go right ahead. But in the interests of mutual understanding, don’t expect everyone else to agree.

So, to Mr Sears and like minded Christians: Merry Christmas and happy holidays from the bottom of my loving, godless heart! I hope you’ll take a greater effort next time in actually understanding our position before you decide to dump on us during this season of mid-winter joy. I doubt it, but I’m always open to evidence that shakes my beliefs. Are you?

Father Tim thinks I’m sad

Posted on by

Tim Moyle got a piece published in the NP. Apparently he thinks atheists are sad and grumpy because we can’t get past anger when we engage in discussions about religion.

I don’t think I’ve ever gotten angry about anything, much less about religion. I often get frustrated when I see the harm inflicted by certain types of beliefs but I always direct my criticism towards the people who commit atrocious acts. It seems pointless to get emotional about a philosophy.

Tim says:

Atheists tend to see the state of their personal world as being limited to the best they can achieve. Life’s injustices will never ultimately be surmounted and they are limited to a ‘what you see is what you get’ assessment of life’s trials. Believers know that things will be better.

So he’s arguing that religious people are better at ignoring problems and us sad atheists are stuck in reality. Ok, that’s fine, religious people often argue that belief is comforting-which is just a fancy way of saying religious people are too lazy to get off their asses and take some responsibility for some of the world’s problems.

While I realise “life’s injustices will never ultimately be surmounted”, I find hope and comfort when I know people are working on a solution. Tim is taking the apparently timeless assumption that atheists have nothing to live for. Clearly we have everything to live for because we know this life is the only life we have and we’d better make good use of it.

Tim explains:

Why are believers so confident? It’s because even though we have suffered the wounds of sin from various clergy, we know that they not the totality of our experience.

So he thinks priests raping little boys is bad but in the long run is probably ok because his own salvation is more important-yet at the same time implies that atheists are leading a selfish life.

Sorry Tim, but you clearly live a life of selfishness and immorality. I won’t get angry since you’re just repeating the same tired old arguments passed down to you and haven’t really thought things through but I will admit that I find it frustrating when you hide under the covers and pretend everything bad will just go away. By living in reality, atheists have taken the moral high ground and it’s too bad you can’t work with us to make the world a better place.

Medical woo is not consequence-free

Posted on by

Yes, after a long absence, Crommunist is back with a bug up his ass about something else. However, this time it really has nothing at all to do with religion or atheism, so maybe you can hold the eye-rolling in abeyance long enough to hear me out.

One of my favourite blogs to read is Orac’s Respectful Insolence – a valuable repository of science-based medical factoids and critical appraisal of all manner of medical science. While a healthy proportion of the writing casts Orac as the happy warrior, from time to time he really lets his humanity shine through. That has perhaps never been so true as it was for today’s post:

I’m still perturbed that a cancer quack was able to convince a woman who had everything to live for that he could cure her of her breast cancer without surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation. I’m still perturbed at this particular cancer quack’s attitude, where he tried to claim that he didn’t know the woman who is dying, Kim Tinkham, and imply that her cancer recurred because didn’t follow his regimen carefully enough, that she had stopped living the quack’s “alkaline diet.” I thought of my mother-in-law, who died in 2009 of metastatic breast cancer, and watching her decline.

And then I thought of Oprah Winfrey and her role in what ultimately happened to Kim Tinkham.

Proponents of “alternative medicine”, or people who are not specific advocates but still think it has some merit, often use a line that goes something like this: “if it makes people feel better or happier to get reiki or acupuncture or homeopathy, who cares if it doesn’t work? What’s the harm in letting them do whatever they want?” The harm is that people often forgo legitimate treatments that have been shown to work in favour of things that either are not likely to work, or worse still have been shown not to work. This can have disastrous consequences.

Oprah, through her show, encouraged a cancer patient named Kim Tinkham to follow an “alkalizing” protocol to treat her late-stage breast cancer. First off, as someone who researches cancer treatment for a living, I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that either a) cancer is caused by acid, or that b) an alkaline diet will do anything to either your blood chemistry or your overall health. While Ms. Tinkham made the choice herself to commit slow suicide, Oprah essentially put the gun in her hand.

I’ve said before that lack of dissent is assent – tacit encouragement is even more egregious. Someone with the reach and influence that Oprah wields has a responsibility to either give sound medical advice or to stay out of that game altogether. By encouraging people to pursue quack treatments or ludicrous faith healers (like John of God), she undermines both the ability of people to make truly informed choices and the work that real researchers do every day to try and improve the lot of people with cancer.

Orac’s post comes complete with a plea:

Oprah needs to know what can happen when people choose quackery and woo instead of effective science-based medicine. You, my readers, are just the folks to inform Oprah (or at least Oprah’s producers), too. You can do it by heading to Oprah’s contact page and letting her know what happened to Kim Tinkham…

This strategy requires a lot of people bombarding the Oprah website with requests. It’s unlikely to work just from my readership alone. It needs other bloggers willing to urge their readers to do the same thing to have even a wisp of a chance of working. So, if you have a blog, consider urging your readers to remind Oprah’s producers about Kim Tinkham.

I would add my own voice to this plea, and ask that you take a couple of minutes to tell the Oprah show what you think of anyone who uses their power and heft to endorse quackery, whilst simultaneously branding yourself as a source for information about health and wellness. It is frankly unacceptable to abdicate any responsibility for the consequences of your actions, even if you’re not the one who pulls the trigger.

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15