Despite
their claims, they can't divide science up into science they like
science that doesn't count.
One of my pet peeves regarding the skeptical community
is the belief that some of them foster regarding science and
empiricism. They try to present themselves as a community that tests
every claim in the universe that can be empirically tested. And if
they test every claim that can be empirically tested, then anything
that they don't test must, somehow, be outside the realm of empirical
science. That belief, of course, is bullpucky. Contrary to claims
made by various skeptics, they seem to only be interested in a small
portion of all the things that can be scientifically tested.
Daniel Loxton wrote a
piece at Skepticblog regarding the lack of overlap between the
skeptical movement and atheism:
Skeptics
like Steven Novella insist that sticking to the realm of science is
“about clarity of philosophy, logic, and definition” rather than
strategic advantage or intellectual cowardice, but some critics find
this position unsatisfying—or even suspicious.
(...)
I have divided this paragraph into two pieces so that I
could separate out the supposed claim from the actual claim without
making it look like I was trying to take his words out of context. As
for the above quote, I can see that the supposed claim is that
strictly adhering to science is a matter of clarity while others
(atheists I presume) claim it is cowardice. I, personally, don't know
anyone that thinks this. I could be wrong since atheists think for
themselves, I doubt that this is the predominant view that atheists
hold of skeptics.
(...)
What are we to make of accusations that skepticism’s
“testable claims” scope is a cynical political dodge, a way to
present skeptics as brave investigators while conveniently arranging
to leave religious feathers unruffled? Like the other clichés of my
field (“skeptics are in the pocket of Big Pharma!”) this
complaint is probably immortal. No matter how often this claim is
debunked, it will never go away.
Here is the part that I really have a problem with.
Skepticism doesn't include all testable claims. Skepticism only
includes a minor subset of testable claims while at the same time
actively denigrating people that work in the broader context of
science.
Before I upset too many skeptics, I need to point out
that this isn't intended as a broad brush claim. There are plenty of
skeptics that don't limit themselves to a narrow subset of science.
There are also plenty of skeptics that welcome atheists into their
ranks. But there are enough skeptics that want to limit skepticism to
their narrow definition of science that a reasonable portion of
atheists no longer feel comfortable claiming common cause with
skeptics. And it is this divide between skeptics and atheists that is
frustrating since the overlap between the two communities is so vast.
In his post Mr. Loxton talks about the charges he
believes are leveled against the skeptical community. I have never
heard these charges myself, but that doesn't mean that some atheist
has made them at some point in time. He believes skeptics giving any
sort of special pass to religion is inaccurate. He goes on to say
that skeptics investigate any claim that can be investigated
regardless of whether religion is involved.
Now, here’s what actually is
true: scientific skeptics investigate claims that can be
investigated (religious or otherwise) and we set aside
claims that cannot be investigated (again,
religious or otherwise). The “religious” part is irrelevant. It
comes up on both sides of the testability equation, so just cross it
out and forget about it. The only relevant distinction is simply
whether empirical evidence is possible. If we
can’t collect evidence, then tough—we can’t. If we can
collect evidence, then we do, regardless of whom that evidence may
offend.
But is that true? I would submit that it is not. I am
not arguing that the skeptics intentionally provide cover for
religion, but I do believe that they don't test religious claims
unless they are blatantly, obviously, and unquestionably fraudulent.
What if a religious claim falls within the bounds of science to the
same degree that a non-religious claim would? Are they actually
treated the same way?
Imagine a hypothetical person walking up to a skeptic
and saying that they believe in complimentary and alternative
medicine. What do you suppose the skeptic would say? Since many of
the skeptics I know take an active interest in debunking CAM
(complimentary and alternative medicine), I would assume that they
would follow up with a few questions or assumptions and begin to
debunk the crazy claims that many of people in the CAM community have
put forward.
Notice that our hypothetical person didn't claim a
belief in any specifics that could be debunked. They didn't claim to
believe in homeopathy, magneto therapy, or acupuncture. Yet CAM
itself falls outside of the skeptics specifically defined bounds. It,
in and of itself, can not be empirically tested because it isn't
clearly defined. While there might be several things that fall under
the CAM umbrella that can be tested, CAM itself can not. Regardless
of this fact, I have never seen a skeptic step away from CAM
scratching their head and saying that they must remain agnostic about
CAM since it falls outside of empiricism.
Now let's take a look at religion. People often say that
they believe in a god. There are no shortage of them in the United
States or the world for that matter. God, at least at this point in
the conversation, is just as much of an umbrella concept as CAM.
Since it isn't defined, their god could be an alien hidden under a
rock on the far side of the universe that has no interaction with us
at all and no ability to pull itself up out of the mud.
Raise your hand if you think this is the kind of thing
that religious people are talking about with respect to their god.
Yet despite not even scratching the surface of the god hypothesis,
many skeptics gladly shrug and assume an attitude along the lines of
'I can't test it, so happy proselytizing'.
Those of us that don't want to ignore a specific claim
that something exists have to clarify the claim. We ask a question.
Do you, as a religious person, believe that a child was born to a
virgin that was the son of your god? Since the most common response
in the United States would be "Yes!", we'll assume that
answer from the theist. Despite their answer, everything we know
about science says that this is impossible. Every test that we have
ever observed has demonstrated that women don't become pregnant
spontaneously.
So we ask another question. Do you believe that Jesus
was crucified and came back to life at a later date (usually
considered three days)? Everything we know about science says that
humans don't come back from the dead. While there might be some
leeway about where exactly the line is that makes a human dead, once
they cross that line, they don't come back. And even when they do
come back after tens of minutes submerged in frigid water, it is
always with heroic measures.
Another question: do you believe that your god interacts
with humanity by answering prayers? We have actually tested this
repeatedly under controlled circumstances. We haven't ever observed a
prayer being answered.
Another: does your god interact with the world in any
way? Assuming the answer is yes, then the interactions can be tested
empirically. Theoretically, if a fly farts on Mt. Fuji then we can
demonstrate that interaction with the world. The more grandiose the
interactions, the easier they are to test; yet no evidence for a god
has ever been found.
I will, of course, grant that absence of evidence isn't
evidence of absence. Regardless, absence of evidence when we have
tested for it repeatedly is at least on par with the absence of
evidence for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.
Atheists often see skeptics trying to define empiricism
and science specifically to suit their purpose. When skeptics talk to
someone that believes in Bigfoot, they say that they have reviewed
the evidence and found no proof that the creature exists. Skeptics
then tell the world that there is no reason to believe in Bigfoot
unless new evidence is presented to support the case. Yet when
atheists tell someone that believes in God that we have reviewed the
evidence and found no proof that the creature exists, and we tell
people that there is no reason to believe in God unless new evidence
is presented, we are accused of operating outside the of the confines
of empiricism.
If, as skeptics, you want to avoid religious questions,
that is your choice; however, when atheists use science to
empirically test religious claims, you don't get to claim that we are
doing skepticism wrong without looking like you are, indeed, giving
religion a free pass for some reason.
