Over the years, I have been critical of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP) and its parent organization, the Center for Free Inquiry. As a result of the particular interests of its founding generation, notably philosopher Paul Kurtz, CSI has routinely conflated scientific skepticism with secular humanism, going so far as to ostracize those who aren’t atheists from the skeptical movement. This tendency will only grow worse now that CFI has officially merged with the Richard Dawkins Foundation, another group that is officially dedicated to science and reason but is informally an atheist advocacy group. I think that it is a mistake to claim skepticism as a cadet branch of atheism. I don’t need to rehash all of the reasons that I believe this, among them the fact that (a) skepticism is an activity, not a belief and (b) critical thinking can govern how to think about issues and evaluate alternatives, but it cannot make value judgments for us. It is not for me to tell people what conclusions to draw from evidence, or how to feel about it, but rather our goal should be to ensure that we agree on what constitutes evidence and the rules of logic that allow us to draw conclusions from it. To put it in plainer terms, we might consider the famous “trolley problem” in philosophy: A trolley moves down the track, about to strike three people. Flipping a switch would send it down another track, killing just one person. Do you actively intervene to kill one and save three? Does it matter if the one person is a famous scientist and the three are criminals? Science and reason can help us evaluate the facts and the consequences, but they cannot tell us how to feel about the intangible value of human life, of personal responsibility, etc. Those aren’t questions for science.
However, skeptics want to make them so. In the new edition of Skeptical Inquirer (March/April 2017), there are a number of somewhat disturbing articles that emphasize the “mission creep” that weakens the concept of critical thinking by marrying it too closely to the philosophy of secular humanism, to atheist advocacy, and to a generally misanthropic worldview that is deeply off-putting. It is a philosophy for an angry minority, primarily of bitter old men, but it is not a positive vision of anything, and not one that will reach the large mass of people skeptics claim to want to influence. Consider Confidence Game author Maria Konnikova’s speech at CSICon Las Vegas reported in the Skeptical Inquirer. She told the audience that stories are bad. “In the wrong hands, stories can be a force for evil,” she said, as though this were any different than any other human endeavor. Hammers are a force for evil sometimes, too, as is even logic itself, when the deadly efficiency of syllogisms lead nations to terrible atrocities in the name of reason. Konnikova complained that storytelling leads to emotions, and emotions lead to terrible consequences, including injustice and fraud. “Humanity sucks; trust no one!” she said, though she was in context a tad more hopeful than this makes her sound. That might sound like a rallying cry for disaffected outcasts, but it reinforces the idea that skeptics cast themselves as outsiders casting angry judgment on the follies of the wicked. In this, they are mirror images of the fundamentalist Christians who issue moral fatwas while pretending to be in the world, but not of the world. I would prefer to call out fraudsters for their frauds without assuming that everyone is inherently evil and corrupt. But more directly of concern was the interview that Skeptical Inquirer editor Kendrick Frazier had with James “the Amazing” Randi. Both men were present at the beginning of CSI. Randi was a founder of the organization in 1976, and Frazier has edited Skeptical Inquirer since 1977. But as much good work as both have done, their time has passed. They have hardened in their views to the point that they have become limiting. Frazier’s magazine has barely changed, in format or content, in decades. He likes to publish anniversary updates of material written before I was born. The current issue features an update of the book The Selfish Gene, which Richard Dawkins wrote in 1976! Frazier only introduced color a few years ago for crying out loud! He continues to view the magazine as an academic journal for the smart set, and that means that it has virtually no appeal to people who would like a Consumer Reports-style evaluation of what is true but who have no intention of wading through verbiage that is always stodgy and often purposefully complex. Randi has always been more of a populist, but as he has grown older he has become more militant in seeing skepticism as a wedge for atheism, somewhat like the inverse of evangelicals who hope to use intelligent design to advocate for their God. Randi is officially agnostic because he cannot prove there is no God, but his agnosticism is the kind of technical agnosticism born of logic, the way I am technically agnostic on the existence of unicorns. In their interview, Randi brought up the issue of Martin Gardner’s deism, and Frazier suggested that skeptics “can certainly deal with a deist in the house,” a phrasing that suggests an assumption that skeptics will be atheists until proved otherwise. Randi, however, despite supporting Gardner’s deism because Gardner conceded it was illogical, wasted no words in condemning God: “I just think that a belief in a god is one of the most damaging things that infests humanity at this particular moment in history. It may improve. I see signs that it may be improving. I’ll leave it at that.” He later added that he had been skeptical of religion since childhood. Both men seemed to feel that skepticism and atheism are two sides of the same coin, but this repeats the error of political parties that impose ideological purity tests on their members. It promotes extremism and limits the good that can be done among a larger population. What’s interesting, though, is the contrast that Randi drew between the early years of CSI(COP) and what it is today. Randi spoke of how he used to develop deep personal relationships with newspaper columnists, journalists, and broadcasters in order to make himself the go-to person for a skeptical viewpoint on unusual claims. By contrast, over the years CSI has moved farther and farther from deep engagement with the mainstream media and instead retreated into an insulated world of Skeptical Inquirer, the James Randi Educational Foundation message boards, and the skeptical conference circuit. As a result, the organization now talks mostly to itself and its membership, and despite its claims to do outreach, a Google News search finds that the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry has almost no presence in the mainstream media in the past few years. (The exception is Joe Nickell, who is usually promoting his own books and his investigations rather than CSI as an institution.) In the same issue, Ronald A. Lindsay, the former CEO of CFI, says that I am wrong about the insularity of skepticism. He says that this is “the cynic’s view.” Lindsay touted CFI’s public policy arm, which hasn’t really had much impact, to be honest (they pushed for regulations on homeopathy, yielding an FDA label on products that no one will read), and is more aligned with secular humanism than skepticism anyway. To return to my point from earlier, I have a problem with this kind of advocacy because skepticism can’t tell us what values to promote. For example, a few weeks ago, a New Mexico legislator moved to codify into law that no government money should be used to hunt for Bigfoot or other “fictional” creatures after Christopher Dyer of the University of New Mexico took his students on a daylong Bigfoot hunt. The legislator, George Munoz, claimed that it was not “morally right” to spend taxpayer dollars on fruitless research. Skepticism cannot tell us whether to support efforts to rid the academy of pseudoscience or whether to oppose government restrictions on academic freedom. This is a value judgment, and a political one. But in explaining CFI’s role in political controversies, Lindsay also inadvertently confirmed what I had long suspected: Big-league skeptics want to be seen as “serious” players in public policy at the highest levels, not merely people who work in the trenches with the vulgar masses. He defended skepticism against John Horgan’s charges that it devotes too much time to the supernatural by explaining that CSI is now primarily about health and medicine based advocacy and science education advocacy. But in making his case, he also all but admitted that skepticism is now an abstract concept, talking about vague principles rather than real concerns, and largely divorced from the workaday issues that real people face when confronted with bizarre and unusual claims. Just as Washington seems removed from the American people, so too is a politically oriented skepticism focused on public policy issues removed from the kinds of practical “is this true?” issues that are about the only thing skepticism does differently and better than any other special interest group. Lindsay concluded with a call for support (read: money) for “appropriate science-based public policies,” happily conflating skepticism and secular humanism, and assuming that science can dictate public policies rather than merely inform a selection of policy options.
93 Comments
Tom
2/19/2017 09:44:04 am
Sorry, you are wrong.
Reply
A Buddhist
2/19/2017 10:21:53 am
Tom,
Reply
2/19/2017 11:48:13 am
I am not sure what you are saying I am wrong about. I am not advocating for religion, but merely saying that purity tests for who is allowed to think critically risk driving away the people skeptics most want to reach. Skepticism shouldn't be an identity movement.
Reply
Joseph Wilson
2/19/2017 10:42:38 pm
Hear, hear! You have hit the nail on the head here.
Time Machine
2/21/2017 08:58:14 am
Oh come on, Jesus Christ can be debunked as easily as Erich Von Daniken, Scottt Wolter and the rest.
Reply
Time Machine
2/21/2017 09:02:04 am
And how can Biblical Apologetic scepticism be defended.
Time Machine
2/21/2017 09:16:31 am
The Bible is there to be debunked
Reply
A Buddhist
2/19/2017 10:38:11 am
Jason,
Reply
David Bradbury
2/19/2017 11:21:23 am
"other skeptics favour a broader application of skeptical principles so that a nation-state may be guided in sound policies"
Reply
A Buddhist
2/19/2017 12:21:49 pm
Some would say that this is the beauty of the skeptics' world-view - it encourages and supports the development of rationalism.
David Bradbury
2/19/2017 04:03:40 pm
I'm sure it does- but I'm not at all sure that a fundamentally negatory approach is the best way into rational thinking.
Only Me
2/19/2017 10:41:07 am
Many times I've read online "discussions" where someone claiming to be an atheist was utterly confused that there are scientists who have faith. Apparently, you can't be a scientist or skeptic or, whatever, if you follow a religion.
Reply
A Buddhist
2/19/2017 11:01:57 am
If there were no religious scientists, there would be no Newtonian physics or Faraday cages!
Reply
David Bradbury
2/19/2017 11:17:28 am
There might, however, be Faraday cages and expositions of Newtonian physics under the names of different people; a condition of our existence is that oxygen existed before science identified it.
Uncle Ron
2/19/2017 11:37:49 am
If Newton had been completely religious he would have observed the falling apple and said to himself, "God made that happen," and that would have been the end of it.
Kathleen
2/19/2017 01:22:39 pm
I know I've said it before, but check out CCC 159.
Fawkes
2/19/2017 03:26:28 pm
"If there were no religious scientists, there would be no Newtonian physics or Faraday cages!"
David Bradbury
2/19/2017 03:41:57 pm
OK, I am quite impressed. Confused, but impressed:
Time Machine
2/21/2017 09:00:35 am
CCC 159
dubious f
2/19/2017 01:14:02 pm
A fact, a scientific (based on it's method and methodology) proof, always makes more sense and easier to explain that trying to conclude to a meddling hand of a god. A belief is not a proof. Skeptism is that; discern the proof from the belief, the opinion, the possibility, the self-reasoning, the social acceptance, the perception, the mystic involvement, the moral faith.....
Reply
2/19/2017 01:33:05 pm
I wouldn't argue otherwise. But there is no reason to say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to engage in critical thinking because they aren't 100% doctrinaire atheist. Would you also purge all the people who engage in superstitions, wear a lucky shirt to a job interview, or who have sentimental attachments to childhood mementos? These behaviors are irrational as well. By the time you get down to the handful of Vulcans in the population, you will have eliminated almost everyone. That's why I said that we should view skepticism as an action, not an identity, so that anyone can engage in it and, we would hope, learn something from it. Purging the impure is a recipe of marginalization and isolation.
Reply
Dubious f
2/19/2017 01:51:48 pm
I agree with your point and I have a tendency to orient the fact as real hardcore proof, God fearing or not. I think we usually mix religion and spirituality, spirituality is not a religion but I feel the later one tend to divide the populace. It's not that a zero-God matrix is a prerequisite to skeptism, it's that by extent, a believing member of a religious or sectarian group cannot shove down our throats a fact that comes from a dogma. If it's not in the bible, it's not true!! If so why can't I change my water into wine....
David Bradbury
2/19/2017 07:32:41 pm
"why can't I change my water into wine"
Dubious f
2/19/2017 08:13:32 pm
if a "deus vult" governs, God is busy. On a philosophical point of view, can a god be so powerful that he can create a universe that he has no control over. So long omnipotence. I like to think my entity is in that one....
A C
2/19/2017 02:16:02 pm
You see lots of atheists proudly claim that they were critical of religion from a young age.
Reply
2/19/2017 02:41:51 pm
The odd thing is that the fringe folk do it, too. Erich von Daniken makes the same claim in his books, that he doubted Catholic dogma from grade school. Giorgio Tsoukalos speaks of how he believed in ancient aliens since he was a toddler. I think it comes down to trying to establish one's position as a true believer and a lifelong member of the faith. It's a reflection of the desire to be seen as morally pure and virtuous.
Reply
Time Machine
2/21/2017 09:13:38 am
And not everyone is a programmed Roman Catholic like Jason Colavito "I was raised a Catholic, I am therefore a Catholic"
Gary
2/19/2017 03:40:28 pm
Jason, would you also object to skeptics rejecting someone who was an anti-vaxer or a promoter of homeopathy? Religion may be culturally ingrained but should still be subject to the same evaluation as other non-scientific, unsupported claims
Reply
DR HALSEY
2/19/2017 03:48:19 pm
Doesn't that scenario run counter to Jason's call for skepticism to not be an identify in-and-of-itself?
Reply
V
2/19/2017 07:53:54 pm
Personally, I would object to skeptics rejecting "someone who was..." anything at all, and I think this is precisely the point that Jason was making: when you reject the PERSON instead of the ideas, you fail to reach the people you want to reach and you marginalize yourself and alienate those people from you.
Reply
Gary
2/20/2017 06:20:58 pm
V, they are free to explore their own beliefs as much as anyone, but we are talking about openly criticizing their claims, not joining a club. There is no religious test for joining the Skeptics Society. Why would skeptics keep quiet about the things I mentioned? To make them feel more comfortable? They are the very ideas that skeptics are against. So why would they have to keep mum about religion, too?
Kal
2/19/2017 03:48:22 pm
Rational thinking and rationalism might be different things.
Reply
V
2/19/2017 04:12:03 pm
“I just think that a belief in a god is one of the most damaging things that infests humanity at this particular moment in history."
Reply
A Buddhist
2/19/2017 04:36:52 pm
You conflate atheism (the belief that there is no god) with scientism (the belief the science can explain everything).
Reply
Dubious f
2/19/2017 05:31:42 pm
And why are you confusing scientiism with science. Science is knowledge, it doesn't have the audacity to believe it can explain everything.....yet.... Let us not tie as a whole, the empirical world vs the perceived universe. Also,atheism is not just about god. It's also about the life-after that if you think about it, doesn't need a god really. Lights out.
David Bradbury
2/19/2017 05:56:33 pm
Atheism does not, inherently, have anything to say about the possibility of consciousness continuing beyond the cessation of function of the four-dimensional physical body, which indeed, whether or not you think about it "doesn't need a god really".
V
2/19/2017 08:07:33 pm
See, the scientists in my life have been very specific. They have always told me that science CAN explain everything...and that that is not the same statement as that science DOES explain everything. Regardless, I have yet to meet an atheist who is not also a "believer in scientism," a term that I admit I have never heard before today. I have, however, repeatedly heard this one:
David Bradbury
2/20/2017 03:58:20 am
"the scientists in my life have been very specific. They have always told me that science CAN explain everything...and that that is not the same statement as that science DOES explain everything. "
Jason is right!
Reply
Uncle Ron
2/19/2017 08:37:59 pm
Ending the cold war by demonstrating that the economics of an arms race are destructive to society as a whole is a far cry from deterring an individual who believes that he is guaranteed entry into paradise by killing infidels. He has nothing to gain by turning away from his beliefs and every incentive to maintain them.
Reply
Lurker Un-cloaking
2/19/2017 11:47:17 pm
You are annoying, Mr. Franke, and it is hard to tell whether the worst of it is your continued repetition of the drivellings of the mentally unbalanced creature squatting in the Oval Office at present, or your resolutely a-historical view of religious development, whether that religion be Christianity or Islam.
Reply
Lurker Un-Cloaking
2/20/2017 12:25:28 am
It is worth pausing to point out that the body of thought giving rise to the Protestant Reformation in Europe, which you hang your hat on as evidence of advance and rational thought, was in fact a retrograde one, an attempt to get back to a pure Christianity, as it was imagined to have been in the beginning, before the Catholic clergy added and interpreted and ritualized or whatever. Islam has had a number of such reformations over the centuries. Tamurlane assailed the Moslem ruler of southeastern Europe, and the Moslem ruler of much of the Indian sub-continent, on the grounds accommodations they extended to their unbelieving subjects betrayed the pure ways of Islam he defended and embodied. The Wahhabi arose in Arabia in the eighteenth century as a purifying movement to restore the pure practices and devotions of Islam at the beginning, as they conceived these to be. The Deobandi rose in the nineteenth century, in what is now Pakistan, with a similar purpose, though flavored with a distinct rancor towards the West, English soldiers being established nearby at the time.
Clint Knapp
2/20/2017 12:48:17 am
Feeling more and more like a lurker myself for want of time to spend commenting, I simply say thanks for that.
David Bradbury
2/20/2017 04:01:55 am
" the body of thought giving rise to the Protestant Reformation in Europe, which you hang your hat on as evidence of advance and rational thought, was in fact a retrograde one, an attempt to get back to a pure Christianity"
Just a short notice:
Lurker Un-Cloaking
2/20/2017 09:25:02 am
Lurker Un-Cloaking
2/20/2017 10:14:25 am
Lurker Un-Cloaking
2/20/2017 10:44:49 am
Lurker un-cloaking:
Lurker Un-Cloaking
2/20/2017 01:30:51 pm
Actually, Mr. Franke, you did say that:
David Bradbury
2/20/2017 02:10:34 pm
"the awakening of doubts which cannot be accepted but must be beaten off and beaten down."
Lurker Un-Cloaking
2/20/2017 05:00:24 pm
" 'the awakening of doubts which cannot be accepted but must be beaten off and beaten down.'
David Bradbury
2/20/2017 07:05:13 pm
"The Reformation questioned Catholicism, Mr. Bradbury. It did not question Christianity. Elements of it went so far as to question whether Catholicism was Christian, and if one looks, these can still be found today, even in some seemingly respectable Protestant circles. But no one questioned the ascription of divinity to Jesus Christ."
Lurker Un-Cloaking
2/20/2017 08:56:44 pm
I suppose, Mr. Bradbury, the Socinians could be brought forth from within the conventional time frame.
Da Romaius
2/19/2017 06:44:43 pm
Jason is not right yet T. Franke has declared victory for him. Such premature declarations are a common occurrence amongst those who do not understand debate or the nature of war.
Reply
2/19/2017 06:59:05 pm
Actually, I think that the older generation of skeptics is set in their ways in terms of media utilization and thus produce boring products. Skeptical Inquirer hasn't kept up with the times, and skeptic groups in general aren't engaging with younger audiences as effectively as they could. But I won't back down on the idea that atheism and secular humanism are not synonymous with skepticism. If you label critical thinking as a political position, it's no wonder that people who aren't liberals, atheists, and secular humanists see irrationalism and fantasy as legitimate alternatives.
Reply
Da Romaius
2/21/2017 01:50:51 am
The emphasis on the aging Skeptical Inquirer is superfluous as I believe you and others are doing just fine reaching other skeptics and atheists with many, many blogs and podcasts. We arrive at our perspectives by roads as diverse as our individual selves so focusing on one publication and some fussy old atheists seems a bit narrow minded to me. I'm not defending we fussy old atheists, I'm just sayin'. 3/1/2017 05:29:17 pm
> I think that the older generation of skeptics is set in their ways in terms of media utilization and thus produce boring products.
David Bradbury
2/19/2017 07:29:29 pm
"The West certainly did not expose the evils of communism or the virtues of free market capitalism. Communism is certainly not an evil and free market capitalism has sure turned out to be such."
Reply
Da Romaius
2/21/2017 01:56:12 am
It was not presented as logical thought, Anyone could see that if they didn't have logic axe grinding blinding their vision. This why many atheists are so boring.
David Bradbury
2/21/2017 03:47:56 am
Point taken. Any statement which repeatedly uses the word "certainly" is indeed unlikely to be based on logical thought.
V
2/19/2017 08:23:49 pm
1. SKEPTICISM should not be dependent on a specific political point of view, and if you think it should, you need to "pass the baton" before you hurt your cause, regardless of your age. Skepticism should be applied to ALL political thinking, because politics is inherently biased. ATHEISM can be as political as it wants, since it is, by definition, a particular sociopolitical view.
Reply
Da Romaius
2/21/2017 02:02:36 am
Skepticism is a human perspective, humans are always being political even whilst they swear they aren't. What is your cause? Do you even know what my cause is? 2/19/2017 07:16:56 pm
Whoa, boy. You've poked the seething topic I've been not very adequately suppressing for 2 years. I am a CSI Scientific and Technical Consultant, yet they never ask me to participate in anything (except to volunteer for conference organizing). You are correct in that they can't be original. Hell, they stole The Amazing Meeting concept (all but the name, which they can't legally use) for an annual conference (of just like minds preaching to the choir).
Reply
2/19/2017 07:58:32 pm
Thanks, Sharon, for sharing that insider information. You're right that it is sad that the organization is so wedded to a specific agenda that they are marginalizing themselves into irrelevance.
Reply
Americanegro
2/20/2017 03:45:49 pm
Hopefully you could silo some teams, curate and taxonomise the legacy information, pivot with focus groups, and pilot a MUCH SHORTER RANTS initiative. Jeebers, that was a long slog.
JLH
2/20/2017 11:00:32 pm
Patreon, Kickstarter. New model built on new modes.
PNO TECH
2/19/2017 08:41:56 pm
As a reformed militant atheist and current lazy agnostic I heartily agree with Jason. Perhaps the capital S Skepticism is the problem. I prod people toward critical thinking quietly, politely and seditiously; were I to deny their faith I would never get to plant any seeds.
Reply
Kathleen
2/19/2017 11:25:58 pm
"methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith" CCC159
Reply
Harry
2/19/2017 11:03:08 pm
I have a soft spot in my heart for James Randi because he was the first to debunk some of the bad claims I heard as a youth and helped to develop my critical skills, for which I will always be grateful, but I also have a similar reaction to his militant atheism as Jason (not least because I am still a theist).
Reply
S. Madison
2/20/2017 12:33:30 am
Jason you said, "Lindsay concluded with a call for support (read: money) for “appropriate science-based public policies,” happily conflating skepticism and secular humanism, and assuming that science can dictate public policies rather than merely inform a selection of policy options."
Reply
BigNick
2/20/2017 12:37:41 am
I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
Reply
BigNick
2/20/2017 12:37:54 am
I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
Reply
BigNick
2/20/2017 12:38:15 am
I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
Reply
BigNick
2/20/2017 12:38:44 am
I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
Reply
BigNick
2/20/2017 12:38:59 am
I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
Reply
BigNick
2/20/2017 12:39:05 am
I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in ghosts. I have seen ghosts. I have heard ghosts
Reply
Americanegro
2/20/2017 04:44:40 pm
Bignick, would you say you consider yourself a skeptic? Just wondering.
Reply
JLH
2/21/2017 02:16:55 pm
I suspect there may be something more to the ghost phenomenon as well as a couple other traditionally fringe ideas, BUT I look to the scientific method to prove it out. I suspect you're in the same boat. Unfortunately the prevalence of "ghost hunters" and self-proclaimed psychics creates way too much signal-to-noise and also chills actual research.
Reply
Clint Knapp
2/20/2017 01:08:08 am
Honestly, I never paid any of the big-name skeptical organizations or figures a lick of attention unless they're mentioned here, and whether they merge and unite in their ideals is entirely meaningless to me. I can appreciate the stance that they don't get to dictate what it means to be a skeptic, though.
Reply
Americanegro
2/20/2017 09:05:35 pm
You might want to read up on how he got duped by his boytoy, not a good look for a skeptic magician.
Reply
JLH
2/21/2017 02:41:57 pm
Can you provide some Google terms? I'm reluctant to have "boytoy" appear in my search history.
Americanegro
2/21/2017 05:10:15 pm
Sure! "Spank your lunch" "Latino fraud love machine" "elderly man lothario scandal".... They should all get you where you want to go, as well as finding information on Randi.
JLH
2/21/2017 07:55:06 pm
It was more that you provided insufficient information to investigate. To be sure, I have much worse than "boytoy" in my history.
Americanegro
2/22/2017 01:24:49 am
You were the one soliciting a young feller to come over and hold your hand while you worked your mouse so you could hide your "interests".
Abraxas
2/20/2017 06:52:40 am
Jason, you should immediately submit this (or a version of it) to The Skeptical Enquirer as a letter to the editor. It's probably the best editorial I've read about the subject of why militant atheism isn't doing any favors for the proliferation of critical thinking.
Reply
JLH
2/21/2017 02:38:29 pm
Agreed 100%!
Reply
Kal
2/20/2017 03:38:58 pm
Some of your commenters really want to be bloggers! Whew, Why doesn't this Lurker have a link to all of his or her commentary, where they can spout off all day? Why come here? Just saying.
Reply
JLH
2/21/2017 02:40:16 pm
I think Jason tapped into something that's been churning just beneath the surface for a long time. It needs shaping to be effective, and I think Jason is the guy to do it.
Reply
funkmon
2/23/2017 05:50:33 am
I really like the Skeptical Inquirer, and I like CSICOP. I really do. I know the feelings of the founders, but I really don't think that scientific skepticism precludes belief in a religion, and I don't think religion is an issue. The claims of religions should be tested where possible, but I strongly dislike the idea that skepticism and atheism are linked.
Reply
3/1/2017 05:20:05 pm
I am a little late on this but...
Reply
Mark
7/3/2017 08:30:36 pm
"CSI has routinely conflated scientific skepticism with secular humanism, going so far as to ostracize those who aren’t atheists from the skeptical movement. This tendency will only grow worse now that CFI has officially merged with the Richard Dawkins Foundation, another group that is officially dedicated to science and reason but is informally an atheist advocacy group."
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
November 2024
|