Anti-vaxxer madlibs

I filled in the blanks!

Don’t you hate that you get sick every time you go to Canada? It certainly can’t be because you got infected before you went to Canada, because we all know correlation implies causation, and that no other variables other that you going to Canada preceded getting sick. Therefore, crossing the border made me sick. I knew this would happen! …What, confirmation bias? What’s that?

Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? Except people say this same exact thing about getting flu shots, not crossing the border. Sigh.

But yeah, apparently I have some non-strep throat virus that’s been going around campus. You know it’s good when the nurse exclaims, “Wow! [Your tonsils] look God awful!” Thankfully it’s not too bad since there’s nothing they can really do about it other than decrease some of the throat pain. Last time I had codeine I had Iron Chef sleep walking hallucinations, so this may be interesting.

Why atheism is the most skeptical position

Some people claim that I don’t know what “skepticism” is really about because I haven’t read the “fundamental” skeptical books. Which was shocking to me, since I thought the concept of skepticism was fairly simple – it’s just the application the scientific method. Of course, other people just claim I haven’t studied the philosophy of science enough to understand how science really works.

Hell, if a grad student in the sciences can’t discuss skepticism because she doesn’t have enough background, I guess those skeptical organizations will be waving goodbye to members who don’t have the proper skeptical credentials. Let’s leave it to the “professional” skeptics.

But while we’re on the topic of appealing to authority, let’s look at how Michael Shermer, co-founder of the Skeptics Society, defines skepticism in his “Skeptic’s Manifesto“:

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

Huh, that’s exactly how I’ve always defined skepticism! I wonder if Michael Shermer knows he needs to go read some more books and brush up on his philosophy of science?

I previously thought this discussion about skepticism and atheism needed to die already. The horse hadn’t just been beaten to death – it has already decomposed and had its molecules reassembled into the surrounding flora and fauna. But some people continue to miss the point, so people keep talking about it. Yesterday I showed up to my first official meeting of the Seattle Atheists (which was awesome, by the way), and what was the panel discussion on? Yep, skepticism versus atheism.

What was curious about that discussion was how different it was since an atheist group was hosting it, rather than skeptics. The atheists freely admitted that not all atheists are skeptics. Some, at least initially, reach their decisions thanks to emotional or value-based arguments, and don’t skeptically examine religious beliefs until later (if ever).

But to those of us who came to atheism through skeptical analysis of religion, it was literally inconceivable how skeptics couldn’t be atheists. The only explanation the panelists could think of for this current debate was that it was based on public relations, not intellectual merit – that yes, skepticism leads to atheism, but please hush about it so we don’t scare away the religious members. Yet there’s another explanation often given – that you can’t directly test the God hypothesis, therefore please hush about it.

And that’s where I must call bullshit.

To understand why I call bullshit (oh my, crass language! I must not know what I’m talking about!), let’s review Wikipedia’s decent summary on the null hypothesis:

The null hypothesis typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential treatment has no effect.[2] […] It is typically paired with a second hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis, which asserts a particular relationship between the phenomena.

[…]Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the data are, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data are very improbable (usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then no conclusion is made. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion.

I’ve always viewed atheism as the null hypothesis. It is the general, default position that makes no claims. Now, there are many, many alternative hypotheses. Zeus exists. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. The particular Judeo-Christian God worshiped by the Second Baptist Church in Richmond, VA exits. Atheists have come to the conclusion that these hypotheses are wrong, not only because they lack evidence (needed to reject the null hypothesis of atheism), but because they’re not even internally consistent claims (contradictions in the Bible, the inability for an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving being to exist, yadda yadda).

“But what about a deist God?” you ask. “What about a definition of God that’s wishy-washy and nebulous? God is love. God is in all of us. You can’t even test those!” Exactly. And since you can’t test them, you can’t gather any evidence for them. And since you can’t gather any evidence for them, you fail to reject the null hypothesis of atheism.

Am I 100% certain that no deity at all exists? No, but you’d be hard pressed to find an atheist who is – even Richard Dawkins wouldn’t claim to be. Technically we’re agnostic to some extent, and that’s a whole other debate that’s wriggling through an earth worm by now. But atheist vs. agnostic semantics aside, the point stands that the scientific method, when applied to belief in God, does not lead to deism or theism.

I guess this is an elaborate way of saying that the burden of proof lies on those making the claims. That seems to be fine when skeptics are dealing with psychics and Bigfoot, but not with God. If you want to avoid it for PR reasons, fine – I disagree with you, but you can run your organization however you like. But if you claim to avoid religious beliefs for skeptical reasons, then, I reiterate, you’re not being fucking skeptical.

Two more cents on skepticism and atheism

Honestly, I’m getting sick of the whole skepticism vs. atheism debate. But I’m an opinionated blogger, so I have to give my thoughts on the latest issue between the two movements.

Skepticon 3 is currently underway in Missouri. While I’m very jealous that I’m not there, Jeff Wagg is very butt-hurt because it looks too much like an “atheist conference.” What makes it so godless? The fact that 3 out of 15 talks explicitly discuss religion.

I know. Such godlessness.

Wagg continues the typical whining that such “emphasis” on atheism will only hurt the skeptical movement, even though skeptical events continue to grow. JT Eberhard, organizer of Skepticon and all-around badass, artfully replies to Wagg’s critiques of the conference:

“What I do think is that Jeff is not playing fair (see earlier bit about speakers giving non-religion talks that would take any equitable onlooker a whole ten seconds to look up) by not presenting the full picture of our event either intentionally or from a lack of sufficiently digging into it to see what we’re about. Either way, bad form. I also think he’s relying too much on his personal anecdote and not on the evidence around him (see the rising numbers of both Skepticon and TAM). I don’t have an issue with Jeff because he’s being pedantic or critical. I have an issue because he’s wrong.”

And PZ replies to the nonsensical idea that religion is somehow off-limits to skepticism:

“Skepticon does have a strong anti-religion emphasis. So? This is a subject open to criticism, and it’s perfectly fair to apply skepticism to religion as much as we would to dowsing or Bigfoot. If someone had organized a skeptics’ conference with an emphasis on, for instance, quack medicine, I doubt that anyone would have squawked that “it’s harming the cause!”, “it’ll make skeptics who believe in homeopathy uncomfortable”, or “it’s diluting medicine and destroying skepticism”.”

But I’m going to take it one step further. Religion shouldn’t just be included in skepticism. Religion is one of, if not the most important issue people should be skeptical about.

Seriously, what affects people the most? Believing in dowsing? Giggling at a horoscope? Perpetuating ghost stories? Searching for Big Foot? Or superstitious religious beliefs that are held by the majority of the population, and not only irrationally alter your behavior in almost all aspects of your life and affect the lives of those around you, but result in the suffering and death of millions of people?

Sticking to talking about psychics and UFOs because we want to artificially inflate our numbers is ridiculous.

Look, there are certainly religious beliefs that are benign enough and don’t end in the Crusades. And there are certainly instances of beliefs in psychics, astrology, and ghosts that do harm people. But to suggest that religious belief isn’t at least as harmful as important topics like homeopathy, chiropracty, or alternative medicine is frankly delusional.

I got interested in the skeptical movement because I liked having a term that implied I didn’t limit my skepticism to religion. You don’t get to ban that type of skepticism because you’re worried about the PR problem. And if you don’t think you should be skeptical about religion, then you’re not being fucking skeptical.

Now, can we stop with the hand holding and move on?

Racial diversity in the atheist community IS our problem

The Guardian has an interesting article up by Alom Shaha on “The accidental exclusion of non-white atheists.” I’m not sure if this was intentional, but it’s a timely follow up for the recent kerfuffle about the apparent lack of women in the atheist movement. One of his main points is that the atheist movement needs to actively try to fix its diversity problem. I think he’s spot on, and the same applies to women:

While black and Asian people may not be actively excluded from atheist and sceptic gatherings, the lack of black and Asian people as speakers or audience members might be one reason why many black or Asian people feel such events are not “for them”. So, even if there’s no deliberate exclusion, there is accidental exclusion. Perhaps some people are genuinely unaware of this, but perhaps others are just hoping the problem does not really exist.

We’re not saying we need to go knocking on doors of religious minorities and target them for atheist evangelizing. We’re saying we want minorities who are already atheists to feel comfortable within our movement. One way to promote inclusivity is to invite minority speakers to conferences or local events, or to encourage current minority members to consider more active leadership positions.

Shaha repeatedly states that he does not think the atheist movement is inherently racist or purposefully excluding minorities. I thought he was being overly polite until I started reading the comments at The Guardian. They’re almost unanimously oblivious, stating there’s no such thing as an atheist movement or community. Look, just because you’re an atheist who doesn’t feel the need to be outspoken or talk to like-minded people doesn’t mean we don’t exist. Is this a British thing, since atheism is so much more common and accepted there?

But my main beef is with the comments that deal with race, which have no excuse. For example:

“This article is a disgrace. Why is it that anything that happens to be white must become more diverse to become a “community”? What a crock of poo. Very expensive deficit causing poo, I might add. You fools would be better off worrying about the genocide of Iraq’s Christians, and the general bad feeling towards minorities in the mulsim world, than worrying about atheists being too white.”

“If people really are so simple-minded as to prefer the company of people of their own colour, then that’s their problem, and neither atheists (nor Christans nor Hindus nor Muslims nor Jews nor anyone else) are under any obligation to go out of their way to accommodate them.”

“oh god … AGAIN! what is wrong with these awful “white men”?? Why are we so bad? just out of pure contrarianism, i am going to campaign for the atheist movement to be a ‘white males only’ movement. i want it to have clubs, and bars and so on, where we are allowed to keep females and other races out. just so so bored of “minority” bleating on the subject of “white men” – gone far too far.”

“What, practically, do you think white atheists should do to encourage black and asian involvement? It’s hardly their fault that asian people (for example) feel a cultural pressure not to get involved, and it is not their fault that asian people feel more comfortable with their own kind (as you suggest). You seem to be blaming whate atheists for a problems which are not of their making. The onus is on minorities, not the audience to which your article is addressed.”

Those are facepalm worthy to say the least. But maybe that sort of stupidity and insensitivity is only from people who think the atheist movement doesn’t exist?

Then I read this comment at the Richard Dawkins Foundation website, presumably from someone within the community:

“We (like there is a ‘we’ in the atheist community) should have second best speakers at events, choose them solely on the colour of their skin, otherwise we might appear racist.

We should have second best speakers at events, choose them solely on the colour of their gender, otherwise we might appear sexist.”

Whoooooooosh.

The assumption that minority speakers are inherently second best? Now that is racist and sexist.

This is identical to atheism’s so called “women problem.” It’s not that we lack worthy non-white atheists: It’s that we have plenty of wonderful non-white atheists who we forget about. If you think people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Maryam Namazie, Hemant Mehta, Ariane Sherine, Salman Rushdie, and Debbie Goddard are “second rate,” you are part of the problem.

Where it really needs to be improved is at conferences. Events like TAM seem to be improving its representation of women, and it’s not just tokenism – I thought all of the female speakers were brilliant. But you know who some of the most disappointing speakers were? People who keep getting re-invited because of their fame, but just re-hashed old talks, gave crappy Q&A sessions, or bored everyone to tears. When all of those people happen to be old white men, it certainly doesn’t look good. Even if it’s the unintentional effect of attempting to sell tickets, it makes it seem like someone is choosing second-rate old white male speakers over first-rate minority speakers.

I’m sure it’s not deliberate, but if we don’t fix our diversity problem now, we’re going to have oodles of problems down the road (check out Greta Christina’s talks about the parallels between our movement and the GLBT movement, and you’ll know why). We need to start being more inclusive if we want the atheist movement to be successful. This is already starting to happen, with groups like the African Americans for Humanism and L.A. Black Skeptics becoming more and more active.

But denying we have the problem and that it’s our job to fix it? Not helping, people.

Canada, here I come!

I’ll be speaking at four different skeptical groups in Vancouver next week*. Here’s my crazy schedule (links go to facebook events):

Simon Fraser University Skeptics
Thurs. Nov. 25 3:30-5:30 pm in AQ 5037
Atheism and Feminism
Hour talk followed by Q&A
Free & open to the public
Likely impromptu pub night to follow

University of British Columbia Freethinkers
Fri. Nov. 26 7-9 pm in Buchanan A203
My Trip to the Creation Museum
Hour talk followed by Q&A
Free for members, $2 for general public
Post talk drinks and fun at the Frog and Firkin

CFI Vancouver
Cafe Inquiry with Jennifer McCreight
Sat. Nov. 27 11 am-1 pm at SFU Harbour Centre
Tentative topic: Closing the gender gap in skepticism
20 min talk followed by discussion
Free & open to public (donations welcome)

British Columbia Humanists
Sun. Nov. 28 9:30-11:30 am at Oakridge Seniors Centre
Boobquake & Its Aftershocks
Hour talk followed by Q&A
Open to public & donations welcome ($2 suggested)
I’ve never been to Canada before, and I can think of no better way to pop my Canada-cherry than hanging out with a bunch of skeptics and heathens. Especially since my other option for Thanksgiving break was sitting in my apartment dreaming about all the delicious food I’m missing out on since I wasn’t going home this year. A mini-vacation to Vancouver is a wonderful alternative, even though I’ll probably spend my time between talks working on homework. At least I’ll be working on homework in Canada.

…Though to show how much of an ignorant American I am sometimes, it didn’t originally dawn on me that Canadians don’t have the same Thanksgiving holiday as us. I promise to keep the stereotypical questions about bacon, hockey, and Celine Dion to a minimum.

*And by next week, I mean in two weeks. I have no concept of time, apparently.

Speaking in Bothell, WA this weekend

If you’re in the Seattle area and want to join some skeptics for dinner while listening to me talk about boobquake, you’re in luck! The Seattle Society for Sensible Explanations (run by the wonderful SkepDoc, Harriet Hall) is hosting me this Saturday, November 13th. All the information you need is at their website (along with a very flattering bio of yours truly *blushes*). You must RSVP by Wednesday if you want to attend.

See you there!

Goddamnit, astrology

One of my friends grabbed a copy of The Stranger before our bus ride to HUMP. He suggested he should read my horoscope for fun since my birthday was included in that week’s edition. After giggling about how astrology is amusing bullshit, I suggest he read me three different horoscopes, and I’d have to guess which one is mine. We agonized over the experimental setup for a bit (“But I know you’re a Scorpio! What if my tone of voice is different for that one? And there’s still a high chance you’ll pick yours randomly…”), then said fuck it and played our little game anyway.

I was impressed. These went beyond your usual astrological predictions and utilized other types of superstitions as well. The first one he read was all about how you should get personalized homeopathy that week. “Well, that’s definitely not mine,” I quipped. The second one could have applied to me if I stretched, but I waited to hear the third:

“Technorati, a search engine for blogs, says there are well over 100 million blogs on the internet, and that figure doesn’t include millions of Chinese-language blogs. So self-expression is thriving on a global scale, right? Not exactly. Most blogs-the estimate is 94 percent-have not been updated for at least four months. In accordance with the current astrological indicators, I expect you to do something about this problem. Refresh your blog in the coming week, or consider launching one if you don’t have one. But don’t stop there. Use every other way you can imagine to show the world who you are. Be articulate and demonstrative and revelatory.”

Me: Well, obviously I have to pick that one.
Friend: That’s Scorpio!
Me: You’re shitting me.

We had a good laugh at the insane coincidence, but that’s all it was. As our other friend rightfully noted, it’s still written vaguely enough to apply to everyone. Regular blogger? Keep up the good work! Have a defunct blog? Update it! Been thinking about blogging? Start one! Don’t even know what the hell a blog is? Express yourself in any way you want!

These are why horoscopes are so effective in duping people – they’re written so no matter who you are, they sound oddly specific. And while it’s all fun and games for some people, others get hurt.

Can I try to Pharyngulate a poll?

The Bad Faith awards are up at the New Humanist. You can vote for who was the biggest “enemy of reason” in 2010. Let me point out who one of the choices is:

Ahhh!!! My arch-nemesis! …If saying a stupid thing about women and science that I later mocked and accidentally turned into a viral boob related meme qualifies someone for arch-nemesis status.

Anyway, you can vote for whoever you want, since there are plenty of “deserving” candidates, but I’ll be voting the pro-boobquake ticket.

Mmmm, sexy brains

No, I haven’t turned into a picky zombie. I’m talking about the Skepticon pin-up calendars.To me, nothing is sexier than intelligence… but having a nice body that’s photographed very artistically is a plus too.

Skepticon is November 19-21 in Springfield, Missouri, and will feature amazing speakers like PZ Myers, Greta Christina, Amanda Marcotte, James Randi, Debbie Goddard, Dan Barker, D.J. Grothe, and Rebecca Watson. Not only is it notorious for being so awesome, but it’s free. You can help keep it that way by buying a calendar.

Oh, and apparently if they sell 600, Hemant will pose next year. Need I say more?

Feminist blogging & putting atheists on a pedestal

You need thick skin to be a blogger – or really, to interact with people on the internet in general. The “Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory” sums up why pretty well. One way I keep my sanity is to not read the comments when people share my posts on sites like reddit, though sometimes I slip up out of curiosity. Let me just say, the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on boobquake is so unflattering, it’s flattering.

Usually I’m okay. But I’ll admit, sometimes the trolls and assholes can get to me, especially if I’m already in a bad mood for some other reason. I have a better time handling douchebaggery here, since my readers tend to eviscerate the comments reeking of stupidity. But it’s not foolproof.

If there’s one thing that will ensure I’ll have a bad day, it’s posting about feminism.

Until now, I couldn’t figure out why sexist comments here upset me so much.

It wasn’t because they were shocking – they’d fill up the antifeminist bingo card almost instantly. They’re so predictable that some of my readers will even preemptively comment with stuff like, “Misogynistic comments and oblivious sexism in 3… 2…1…” And when I see those tired arguments elsewhere, I usually just facepalm and move on.

It wasn’t because they were popular – I deal with a much lower frequency of assholes than “official” feminism themed blogs. And I have many supportive, understanding, and empathetic commenters who help restore my faith in humanity.

It wasn’t because they disagree with me – religious apologetics or conservative viewpoints don’t make me want to tear my hair out anywhere near as much.

It wasn’t because they were rude – in fact, the obviously trollish ad hominem attacks (usually about my appearance) are the easiest to brush off.

So, why? Why do the horrible comments about feminism literally make me want to scream, but equally horrible comments about atheism or science just induce mild frustration? I figured it out when sexist comments were recently aimed my way at an atheist meeting. It wasn’t the first time I’d heard such things in person, but it was the first time I’d heard it in person at a godless gathering. It clicked.

I expect better of atheists.

I’ve put us up on a pedestal.

It makes sense why I would think this way. Based on personal experience, non-theists do tend to be less sexist than the general public. For one thing, we lack the anti-woman rules perpetuated by most major religions. On the contrary, humanism is explicitly supportive of gender equality. It’s also hard to be a sexist skeptic, since there is no evidence to support sexist ideas. Ideologies that support gender equality and skepticism go hand in hand (even if you want to debate the name said ideology should have, because the “f” word gives you hives). And it’s hard to be an unskeptical atheist. Most atheists don’t believe in god precisely because they’re skeptical of religion and the supernatural.

Unfortunately, there are exceptions. Even though we don’t have sexist religious tradition, we can still pick it up from our surrounding culture. And not all atheists are skeptical, nor do all skeptics apply that skepticism to every area of their life.

So when I see some of my predominantly godless readership perpetuating the same fallacies, it’s frankly disappointing. I had deluded myself into thinking we were above that – that I could feel totally comfortable within this group – but I was wrong. If I toe the line and keep criticising religion, I’m fine. But if I dare to mention women’s issues, I’m effectively told to get back in the kitchen. It brings the worst out of people.

Some days it can really bring me down, but ultimately it just motivates me even more. It illustrates why combining my interests in feminism and skepticism is so important. It’s not just about showing women why atheism and skepticism is the better option for women, which I still would assert. It’s about showing skepticism why sexism is not rational, and making the atheist movement more welcoming to women.

I’m critical because I know we can do better. It may take a lifetime to find out, but hopefully I’m right.