A Bigger Tent?

Note:  the following post was written about two weeks before TAM8. In light of the many talks about civility in skepticism, including Phil Plait’s heartfelt and timely talk, it may seem a bit redundant. But it’s something I’ve felt strongly about for a long time, and realize it’s been on many people’s minds.

A few weeks ago I was having a conversation with my friend Clay, and the subject of The Amazing Meeting came up. TAM is the premier annual conference on skepticism and critical thinking, sponsored by the James Randi Educational Foundation.  Clay, myself, and various members of our family and close friends have attended several TAMs in the last few years. When we were discussing the upcoming July 2010 event, he commented that it was getting more difficult for him to enjoy TAM because as a political conservative, he feels more and more alienated.

Liberal Doesn’t Mean Skeptic

Skeptics tend to be overwhelming liberal, and often very liberal. Many of my friends, including the ones mentioned above, consider ourselves conservative, but I argue we are more moderate than most of our conservative colleagues. One of our most liberal co-workers also believes that Mother Teresa was a saintly woman and that your thoughts and actions travel out into the cosmos and affect the universe.  Skeptics may tend to be liberal, but the reverse is not-necessarily the case.

I thought about Clay’s comments quite a bit.  Clay, myself, and several of our grown, college-age children share very similar viewpoints on much of the world.  We have assorted belief systems, but believe that fundamentalism in religion is not only wrong but causes harm.  Socially liberal, pro-choice, liberally educated, non-religious: we don’t fit into the stereotype of the ID-hugging, anti-intellectualism exhibited by the most vocal members of the Republican Right.  My friends and I are trained as engineers and scientists.  We work in the energy industry as well as for an environmental regulatory agency. One conservative colleague runs a successful multimillion dollar business that employs over 1,000 people, one writes for skeptical websites, and we collectively read all the current skeptical and atheist literature. None of us can evenly remotely be identified as right-wing socially,and because of our backgrounds and careers, we know that much of the popular press on the is filled with misinformation, especially when it comes to the energy business.

Conservative Doesn’t Mean Believer

We’re mostly capitalists who donate time and money to charitable works, care about pollution and poverty, and provide for the benefit of employees. We read the proposed health care bill, calculated the costs,  and predict that the bill may drive our manpower-intensive businesses under or overseas.  We can demonstrate that some environmental regulations are not based on science but on pure politics.

In my conversation with Clay, I pointed out that if you only associate with people who think exactly like you do, you don’t learn anything new.  I have old friends who ‘unfriended’ me on  Facebook when they noticed I identified myself as “atheist.” Clay was blasted, rather than engaged in conversation, when he questioned a specific detail of the IPCC climate report. Some of the aforementioned friends were criticized for reading atheist books (which prompted  one friend to buy a Kindle so he could read without needing to hide his book covers). Generally, I’ve found myself criticized when pointing out the conservative viewpoint on business or the oil industry, when speaking in an anonymous manner. But one-on-one, my  network of skeptical friends are interested and engaged. Hateful anonymous comments on a blog post should never compare to sitting over a glass of wine and having the same conversation face to face.  You get a different reaction.

Don’t Alienate Those Who are Largely On Your Side

Sitting in the 1000-strong audience at a function like TAM meetings, my friends who are Christian feel under personal attack because most of the speakers assume that the audience is atheist.  A lovely Christian friend of mine, whose husband is a rather well-known skeptic, feels unwelcome, and another believer friend is considering dropping all of his skeptical activities for a similar reason.  He’s accused of not being ‘a true skeptic’ for his Christian but decidedly non-fundamentalist beliefs.

A huge storm erupted last year when James Randi wrote a blog questioning some aspects of global warming, with dozens of people lamenting the passing of a great mind. Fifty-plus years of critical thinking and debunking pseudoscience – dismissed because of a single issue. Those comments were in the minority, but unfortunately there are many vocal people who feel that if you don’t march lockstep with the Conventional Wisdom of the ‘skeptical movement’, you can’t have a membership card.

THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY ATTITUDE.

Stay the Course

To Clay, and to my believer friends, I urge: don’t turn away from the greater good that the groups who promote skepticism are doing. Don’t withhold your energy, your time, your money, your support, because of one or two issues. For every commenter who makes a snide remark about religious belief, or who say that questioning the health care reform bill means you hate poor people, or that accuse you of being a ‘climate change denier’ when you have concerns about specific points, a much greater issue is at stake than focusing on the narrow points.

When you sit in the audience at TAM and feel that you might be the only Christian, or might be the only conservative, realize that that is not the truth. The truth is that you are a subset of the group, and Joe’s atheism might be as disturbing to my friend Susan’s heartfelt faith as Bill’s unflinching support of All Things Obama is to Brenda. Stay focused on the harm that the anti-vaxxers are causing, or the libel issues that stifle the free exchange of ideas, or the hate-mongers who think gays should be stoned. Stay focused on what the big mission is, which is teaching critical thinking, eliminating the belief in pseudoscience, and promoting science literacy. Our Founding Fathers (who were mostly atheists and deists, by the way) struggled through issues like federalism, slavery, and property rights, and reached their goals in spite of deeply held and conflicting viewpoints. The found compromise, and focused on the most important issue of the day: giving birth to a new kind of nation.

Surely, what we’re do is easier than starting a new nation.

Naomi Baker is founder and co-organizer of the two-year-old Houston Skeptic Society. She works as a director for a private company that specializes in technologies to develop CO2 processing, and applies her 30 years experience in the energy business and engineering to address issues on science and general skepticism.

Trackbacks Comments
  • Wonderful article Naomi! I’d say that as a “believer” one characteristic is that if you believe anything… you need to have that belief tested. If you can’t face criticism and debate about your belief, maybe it wasn’t that strong? I have to admit it was kinda hard at TAM this year, not for any attack I felt personally. But out of fear for the focus of the skeptic movement. “Sure we say nasty stuff but it’s NOTHING compared to what THEY say about US”. If there is one group that I have found in the past is almost always accepting and tolerant, I think it’s the skeptic movement. So when I hear intolerance focused on one group, I get nervous. Or for instance, attacking anyone that questions an environmental stand point. Heck I remember one poor TAM attendee being attacked for questioning the wisdom of donating to SETI. Debate, talk, and above all, listening seems to be something most of my skeptic friends are good at and one reason I stick with it. In a way, if I quit, it’s just open season for perhaps the kind of skeptic intolerance that might need a raised eyebrow or two.

  • One of the pleasures of TAM and other meetings is being around like-minded folks, but I fear that we often become cliquey when we should really be more welcoming. I don’t understand shunning someone who agrees with 95% of what you believe for the 5% that they don’t.

    • It’s odd too. Among some skeptics there now seems to be a “no true scotsman” attitude toward some folks in our community which is a fallacy that skeptics should recognize without having it pointed out to them. And it’s not even held constantly. We regularly welcome people like Penn & Teller, Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens and others, even though many of us disagree with positions they hold in some area or other of direct concern to skeptics or because of their politics. But bring up religion and all hell breaks loose.

      No area should be off limits to criticism, but again (because I have said it many times before) if what we bring to the table is mostly rational, that’s what counts. We are a diverse community and we will never all walk in lockstep. Wouldn’t it be scary if we did?

    • Well, Jeff, I don’t base whether or not I shun someone on the proportion of things they agree or disagree with me on. A person can easily disagree with me on most things and I won’t shun them. You can disagree with me on whether Key Lime pie is any good, whether AC/DC is a good band, whether Star Wars episode 1 ruined the whole series, whether HDDVD should have won the format war and all sorts of other things.

      I won’t shun someone for disagreeing with me on any of these.

      However, if you disagree with me on the topic of slavery – well, expect to be shunned. I don’t care if you agree with me on 99.9% of everything else. Some things are a deal breaker. Most things are not, but a few are.

      So yeah, if you’re a great skeptic but think 9/11 was something the US needs to apologize for, are a member of the KKK, support “freedom of adult-child love” or consider Joseph Stalin your personal hero, I’m gona shun you… regardless of how many other things we agree on.

  • At TAM8, I sat down for lunch on Friday with a random group of people that included a Conservative couple from California. This was a couple hours before Phil’s talk, and this was exactly what we were talking about. Specifically, we were talking about how sad it was that people are so quick do divide into factions and attack each other over one or two issues. I love passionate debate, but the discourse needs to be notched back to a civil level. Also, what got me into the skeptical movement was learning how to spot and avoid logically fallacious arguments.

    Debate is not a knife fight.

    Words and stuff,
    Big Frankie

  • Make the tent big enough and you lose your identity.

    That’s not to say we should not be accepting, but if you invite everyone in your group is no longer what it set out to be.

    A skeptic group should be about skepticism and people who are generally in disagreement with the majority of skeptics on its core issues are not the kind of people you want there.

    Look, lets say I start a club called “The Northeast Model Aircraft Club.”

    So every week we come together and fly model airplanes and talk about it. Then one day someone says “This club is too exclusive. We should let in people who have no interest in model airplanes. We should let in people who want to play bocce” So, just to be inclusive, we start letting people join who have no interest in model aircraft and would rather play bocce. Then some others say “Oh we want to join, but we don’t like either. We want to knit”

    So before long your “model airplane club” has a handful of model airplane flyers, but most of those involved want to knit, play bocce, play chess, talk about books, taste wine, trade baseball cards, do speed-dating, groom poodles and other random things.

    Congratulations. Your club that once had a unified purpose and interest is now, thanks to your inclusionism, nothing more than a gaggle of random people with nothing in common at all.

    And on another related point: in 1944, there was a “Big Tent” set up in Hartford Connecticut for a circus. it caught fire and 168 people died and many more were injured. So, lets keep that in mind.

  • GeekGoddess

    Is that supposed to be profound?

  • As skepticism isn’t something specific like bocce or knitting, it’s appropriate for it to include a variety of people with differing views. After all, skepticism is about process, not conclusions.

    To use your analogy, we would be an aeronautics club, which would include model airplane enthusiasts, astronauts, helicopter engineers and balloonists. Saying that to be part of our club you need to be interested in human-powered flight only is restricting the organization far beyond its usefulness.

    I don’t think your burning tent example helped your case.

  • The International Human Powered Air Vehicle Association might find that statement a little bit offensive.

  • Patrick

    While I agree with the general thrust of the article, I do have to say this…

    The one group that has no home in an association of skeptics is denialists. And conservatives are almost invariably denialists. As a simple example, the belief that America is on the right hand side of the Laffer Curve is a creationist level of ridiculous, and requires the same intellectual machinations to maintain. Similarly, most conservative analysis of health care costs is on a level of foolish that simply isn’t deserving of respect, and requires a level of credulity that discount’s one’s ability to reasonably call oneself a skeptic.

  • I think we get into trouble when we start worrying about whether someone is a “skeptic” or not. All we have to do is look at the evidence on a given issue. If someone is a “denier” of something, they may not be evaluating the evidence on that issue properly. Maybe their intuition tells them something that’s not apparent to us, or maybe they’re giving more value to certain facts than others. Who knows… but we’re going to do far more good by including some who disagree with us than by setting up litmus tests for the label “skeptic.”

    As for health care costs… that’s politics. I believe politics and skepticism are largely incompatible, as one is a system of influence, and the other is a method of discerning the truth. I don’t think you can be devoted to the truth and be a politician. That’s not a slight… I mean it quite literally.

  • My brother recommended I may like this website. He was once totally right.

    This submit actually made my day. You cann’t believe simply how a lot time I had spent for this info! Thank you!

Leave a Comment