Are Sceptics Close-Minded?
After recently recording a fun and meandering podcast on pseudo-science, I've had a few questions on my mind. These questions have been prompted by resulting conversations and deal with my apparent opposition to supernatural ideas. Why am I hesitant to put my stock in magical healing? Why am I "close-minded" about the existence of ghosts and ghoulies?
The truth is, coming from the milieu of scientism and into a more subjective understanding of atheism, the answers to these questions actually matter increasingly less to me. I honestly don't have a desire to disprove any of these things. What matters now, is why others feel my answers are empty or just plain bizarre. When did scepticism, science and general non-belief get mistaken for unfair judgement rather than what it really is - neutrality. Rather than seeking to disprove mediums and witch-doctors, the more important task is seemingly to show that the secular worldview is legitimate, justified and valid. To people's bafflement, I find myself explaining that people can be good without deities or holy books, open-minded without believing in phantoms and fair whilst pointing out that alternative medicines are used without proof and with risk.
What's the Difference Between Faith Claims and Other Supernatural Ones?
Firstly, I'd like to explore a point raised in the podcast about religious language and its difference from scientific language. Unless you're a fundamentalist, all that stuff about end-times, miracles and angels are usually the result of having faith, not its cause. Increasingly, I've found in conversations and study that these statements about reality are window-dressing, poetry and allegorical fable that conceal their real cause - deeply held ethical beliefs. These beliefs congeal into propositions that can look like very strange "scientific" statements. Hence, this is why the debate between atheists and theists remains confused and unresolved and its interlocutors always end up arguing past one another. In other words science observes and describes reality, whilst religion professes the spirit, projecting it onto the world with strong poetic metaphors.
If we take some of the historical proofs for the Abrahamic God such as the Ontological and Cosmological arguments, we see the secondary nature of these propositional worldviews. 12th century monk, Aquinas referred to his teleological (design) and cosmological (causation) arguments as "straw" in comparison to revelation. To take another example, Anselm's Ontological argument (which "proves" God through logic and definitional reasoning), is formatted in Proslogion as a prayer... Which tells you all you need to know; he'd already made up his mind before exploring the proof. Hence, reason is secondary or subsidiary to religion. You can see these kinds of biases all over and its a dogma not exclusive to religious faith. In the modern day, it certainly explains why people are so keen to quote Deuteronomy or Leviticus to condemn LGBTQ+ people but not mixed fabrics or shellfish consumption. I've written some academic pieces exploring what faith statements are and whether "proof" for God can even make sense to people of faith.
So, if religion is not all about statements referring to our physical reality and is instead rooted in emotional sentiment and moralising, then why do I not go in for it? If religion is neither true or false and these terms don't really matter, then why am I an atheist? Because, while it may be subjective, it’s a subjective sentiment that relies on ideas that really don't resonate with me. Ideas like infallible moral commands, infallible entities and dogmatic subservience are, at best, slightly terrifying. An utter self-contempt of humanity and any intrinsic worth nature and human wonder might hold also seems prevalent in ideas like sin, celibacy, humility and dominion. Why can't the world simply be good enough in its own right? Why does morality have to be outsourced to an impossibly confusing being and a singular holy book or collection of texts? This kind of sentiment is much like being partial to a particular food or maybe a book. It is personal. It can be persuasively and passionately argued but so far as objective, communal conversation goes, it can never (and has never been) demonstrated. Reason can neither dislodge or support it - it is of an entirely different category.
It's only the recent backlash of fundamentalists that have tried to appeal against science on its own terms. Traditional faith has nothing to do with reason or evidence. Many contemporary Christians acknowledge, agreeing and arguing for secularism, not wishing to force their subjective relationship with Christ on others. Imagine asking one of the Apostles to produce falsifiable evidence for God's metaphysical existence - you'd receive a blank stare and rightly so. As the name of “faith” suggests, beliefs are held in spite of reasons and validations.
In contradistinction, supernatural ideas and alternative medicine are attempting to appeal to science... Or at least something like it - evidence, arguments, explanations and propositions about the reality we live in are paramount here. So this isn’t just a case of not liking it, here we do reserve the right to talk in terms of physical truths; since that’s the realm they’re dealing with. They are not the cognitive consequence of centuries of cultural morality. Nor are they a personal relationship with God or subjective existentialism wrapped in poetry. Neither do they veritably contain any functional benefits or truths to humanity that has allowed them to survive harsher times. While faith is not about reason or evidence, pseudo-science and superstition try to ground their beliefs in reality. They are simply ideas that science has, with good reason, rejected.
An Impossible Task
Now that we've looked at one way of thinking about statements it should seem clear that not all statements about reality are the same kind. Some are entirely subjective opinions, some are attempts to persuade and some are objective facts, grounded in evidence. Some are metaphorical or poetic, some are able to be demonstrated and proven and others, while believed strongly, rely on leaps of faith.
Many people, especially those that firmly believe supernatural ideas, don't understand scepticism when they offer a statement like "my house was haunted" or "I can heal your back pain with special powers". Now, I'm not saying neither of these things couldn't be true - but I am saying that I need a little more evidence before I go the whole hog and start nodding my head in agreement. These statements aren't the same as saying "I had a corned beef sandwich for my lunch" - I have no reason to doubt the latter; it is not only possible within the realms of science and logic, but requires no theorising as it something we already know can happen and doesn't rely on any stretch of imagination.
Explaining why, for me, supernatural statements are not the same as scientifically validated ones, is a difficult and daunting task. To both, those who have such firm beliefs and to fellow sceptics, it seems pedagogic. It's almost patronising and arrogant to those who face incredulity when it comes to science or philosophy and an unnecessary crash course in "reason 101" to those that don't. In all honesty, I'm unsure if writing this will produce the desired effect of communicating my position so that is understood (yet alone agreed with). Perhaps I should settle by, at the very least, highlighting that the misunderstanding merely exists? I'll try my best to be plain, which has had little success so far.
What's the Difference Between Scientific Claims and Supernatural Ones?
Requesting a little more evidence when it comes to ghosts and reiki does not make you close-minded, just as believing in phenomena without sufficient evidence doesn't necessarily equate to open-mindedness. After all, you can’t believe everything you hear just to be “open-minded".
I'm often told that scientific explanations lack curiosity. However, I'd argue that wanting to explain a phenomenon and get to its cause is the very essence of curiosity itself… Settling for an improbable solution without testing it against other theories and factors begins to sound like the opposite of open-mindedness. Saying that science cannot explain something therefore it's an open game is also a bit of non-sequitur. What this amounts to is essentially "I can't explain something... therefore I can explain it".
When no credible peer-reviewed journal has produced evidence for psychic healing or no credible evidence has ever been found for the existence of the paranormal, the default position is to assume their non-existence or that their explanations lie in the "possible but undiscovered". Within the realm of proven causes of paranormal occurrences we have great feats of trickery, environmental causes, hallucinations and mass hysteria. After that, we could point to undiscovered but possible causes - spores, toxins or mental phenomena. Alternative medicines are simply medicines that are unproven to work and the natural response to their use should be alarm. That’s why doctors are struck off if caught using them and why they remain “alternative” and not simply “medicine”. The idea that ancient remedies have been overlooked or rediscovered is erroneous - most have been adapted. Most herbal medicines are now used in things like aspirin and practices like sati are now incorporated in MBSR. There are very strong reasons why virtually no members of qualified scientific communities accept these practices and their underpinning beliefs. Normalising or supporting the use of failed or inferior medicines through unqualified hands is not a personality quirk; it is potentially dangerous.
Others say that all this scepticism is simply boring or at least, "not nice". I'm never sure how to respond to this (apart from saying it isn’t). A world without gods and ghosts is good enough, in my eyes. Our experiences, relationships and endeavours are magical enough, without throwing witchcraft into the mix. The other issue is more difficult: How do you explain to someone that just because something is nice doesn't make it true? Without sounding like a twat, that is. “How can you believe in nothing, that’s awful”? I didn’t realise there was a choice. We just can't invent realities because we find them attractive.... or at least I can't seem to. I'm never sure what people are getting at here or what the appropriate response is. Suggestions are welcome.
It all comes down to the difference between natural phenomena and the supernatural. The supernatural, by definition, are occurrences that suspend the known laws of nature. When an assertion breaks these laws or is incredibly improbable then the person offering the idea faces a burden of proof. It is on them to prove the claim, since they are the one asserting it. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There are various versions of this maxim but they all hold the same premise. With scientific statements there is no such burden - I would argue it to be the neutral position. This is how the justice system works after all, innocent until proven guilty and few people have a problem with that in principle.
There are a million different videos out there, eloquently explaining why the secular scientific and rational positions are true in this sense of the word. Here are three videos that I consider good entry points into these ideas if you aren't a sceptic and have made it this far. They offer the benefits and legitimacy of scepticism in a way that is much more coherent and captivating than myself:
A measured and entertaining look at homeopathy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Z_zYzJwoo
A TED talk on the science behind paranormal occurrences told through a personal story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8yhaFd_GpM
Why “you should be more open-minded” is an unfair suggestion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Its odd that people are happy to appeal to science to back up their ideas in some areas but willing to ignore it in others. Either one agrees with empiricism on principle or doesn't and any bias surely renders the whole exercise moot. Appealing to science is common on matters of climate change, mocking anti-vaxxers, etc. Science is, in terms of public conversation, the best way of arriving at a notion of truth, after all. If your beliefs happen to fall outside of it, they’re not blasphemous or lacking credibility but their meaning is personal; at least until they have a little more evidence. I wouldn't want to take these beliefs away, even if that were possible. The world is full of all kinds of people with eclectic views on the world and is all the richer for it. However, when they are taught or offered as truth, or involve harm then I certainly wouldn't encourage them and would probably discourage them. When money or vulnerable people are involved, that's also a no-no. In terms of what people can demonstrate, it is unreasonable and unfair for people to demand anecdotes (since you weren't there) or other hopes and opinions as fact.
But, if one doesn't "believe" in evidence then its probably going to take a better writer than me to convince them... or at least much more time and effort. I'd be stretching this piece indeed if I were to argue empiricism; that beliefs are weighted to evidence, in a way that could convince the unconvinced on this issue. Then all the other things that make scientific statements better than anecdotes - reliability, repeatability, controlled conditions and the like. Some people, of course, would talk of conspiracies within science to omit certain truths such as the flatness of the Earth. Ockham's Razor is a great tool in response (that the simplest explanation is the best). Usually, such an idea of distrust rests on a misunderstanding or inexperience of science. Some argue that scientific truths are contextual and subject to revision over time for instance. That doesn’t quite make it fair game though. One of the strongest and most eloquent proponents of this is a scientist named Thomas Kuhn, but as you can guess from his profession he understood this not to be a weakness of science, nor a cause to reject what it had to say. It is still the best narrative, he just wanted to point out the fallacy in thinking knowledge is entirely cumulative and linear.
Grounding the legitimacy of the scientific worldview, and therefore why the scientific method is the best way of determining truth, is probably above and beyond the limitations of this informal and short blog piece. But when people use vague evidence but not the scientific method to demonise the "negativity" lacking belief it truly perplexes me. Arguing out of a refusal to have a position and wilful lack of hubris to be told my "position" is arrogant is an odd situation to be put in. And when it comes from close friends and family, even more so. In a world without god, authority often comes from consensus and collective conversation and it worries me where, not only is the consensus not there, but people have no clue how to reach it or what the statements they offer mean to other people.
But, ultimately I may as well be offering faith statements; true to myself but categorically unconvincing to those who don't resonate with its premise. This is irony of course because my views are not faith-based, but I see a world where people can increasingly no longer comprehend the difference (and don’t even care to). I do wonder where this brings public conversation and issues like secularism. Luckily, we still seem to understand the burden of proof when subjectivity enters an objective conversation in overtly dangerous or harmful ideas. When it comes to fundamentalists and anti-vaxxers, we ask them to have proof or keep their opinions tucked away... for now. Suffice to say, I'm no longer on an ill-founded crusade to change people's view about what they might believe, but to ask for understanding and acceptance of what, and more importantly why, I don't believe.
The truth is, coming from the milieu of scientism and into a more subjective understanding of atheism, the answers to these questions actually matter increasingly less to me. I honestly don't have a desire to disprove any of these things. What matters now, is why others feel my answers are empty or just plain bizarre. When did scepticism, science and general non-belief get mistaken for unfair judgement rather than what it really is - neutrality. Rather than seeking to disprove mediums and witch-doctors, the more important task is seemingly to show that the secular worldview is legitimate, justified and valid. To people's bafflement, I find myself explaining that people can be good without deities or holy books, open-minded without believing in phantoms and fair whilst pointing out that alternative medicines are used without proof and with risk.
What's the Difference Between Faith Claims and Other Supernatural Ones?
Firstly, I'd like to explore a point raised in the podcast about religious language and its difference from scientific language. Unless you're a fundamentalist, all that stuff about end-times, miracles and angels are usually the result of having faith, not its cause. Increasingly, I've found in conversations and study that these statements about reality are window-dressing, poetry and allegorical fable that conceal their real cause - deeply held ethical beliefs. These beliefs congeal into propositions that can look like very strange "scientific" statements. Hence, this is why the debate between atheists and theists remains confused and unresolved and its interlocutors always end up arguing past one another. In other words science observes and describes reality, whilst religion professes the spirit, projecting it onto the world with strong poetic metaphors.
If we take some of the historical proofs for the Abrahamic God such as the Ontological and Cosmological arguments, we see the secondary nature of these propositional worldviews. 12th century monk, Aquinas referred to his teleological (design) and cosmological (causation) arguments as "straw" in comparison to revelation. To take another example, Anselm's Ontological argument (which "proves" God through logic and definitional reasoning), is formatted in Proslogion as a prayer... Which tells you all you need to know; he'd already made up his mind before exploring the proof. Hence, reason is secondary or subsidiary to religion. You can see these kinds of biases all over and its a dogma not exclusive to religious faith. In the modern day, it certainly explains why people are so keen to quote Deuteronomy or Leviticus to condemn LGBTQ+ people but not mixed fabrics or shellfish consumption. I've written some academic pieces exploring what faith statements are and whether "proof" for God can even make sense to people of faith.
So, if religion is not all about statements referring to our physical reality and is instead rooted in emotional sentiment and moralising, then why do I not go in for it? If religion is neither true or false and these terms don't really matter, then why am I an atheist? Because, while it may be subjective, it’s a subjective sentiment that relies on ideas that really don't resonate with me. Ideas like infallible moral commands, infallible entities and dogmatic subservience are, at best, slightly terrifying. An utter self-contempt of humanity and any intrinsic worth nature and human wonder might hold also seems prevalent in ideas like sin, celibacy, humility and dominion. Why can't the world simply be good enough in its own right? Why does morality have to be outsourced to an impossibly confusing being and a singular holy book or collection of texts? This kind of sentiment is much like being partial to a particular food or maybe a book. It is personal. It can be persuasively and passionately argued but so far as objective, communal conversation goes, it can never (and has never been) demonstrated. Reason can neither dislodge or support it - it is of an entirely different category.
It's only the recent backlash of fundamentalists that have tried to appeal against science on its own terms. Traditional faith has nothing to do with reason or evidence. Many contemporary Christians acknowledge, agreeing and arguing for secularism, not wishing to force their subjective relationship with Christ on others. Imagine asking one of the Apostles to produce falsifiable evidence for God's metaphysical existence - you'd receive a blank stare and rightly so. As the name of “faith” suggests, beliefs are held in spite of reasons and validations.
In contradistinction, supernatural ideas and alternative medicine are attempting to appeal to science... Or at least something like it - evidence, arguments, explanations and propositions about the reality we live in are paramount here. So this isn’t just a case of not liking it, here we do reserve the right to talk in terms of physical truths; since that’s the realm they’re dealing with. They are not the cognitive consequence of centuries of cultural morality. Nor are they a personal relationship with God or subjective existentialism wrapped in poetry. Neither do they veritably contain any functional benefits or truths to humanity that has allowed them to survive harsher times. While faith is not about reason or evidence, pseudo-science and superstition try to ground their beliefs in reality. They are simply ideas that science has, with good reason, rejected.
An Impossible Task
Now that we've looked at one way of thinking about statements it should seem clear that not all statements about reality are the same kind. Some are entirely subjective opinions, some are attempts to persuade and some are objective facts, grounded in evidence. Some are metaphorical or poetic, some are able to be demonstrated and proven and others, while believed strongly, rely on leaps of faith.
Many people, especially those that firmly believe supernatural ideas, don't understand scepticism when they offer a statement like "my house was haunted" or "I can heal your back pain with special powers". Now, I'm not saying neither of these things couldn't be true - but I am saying that I need a little more evidence before I go the whole hog and start nodding my head in agreement. These statements aren't the same as saying "I had a corned beef sandwich for my lunch" - I have no reason to doubt the latter; it is not only possible within the realms of science and logic, but requires no theorising as it something we already know can happen and doesn't rely on any stretch of imagination.
Explaining why, for me, supernatural statements are not the same as scientifically validated ones, is a difficult and daunting task. To both, those who have such firm beliefs and to fellow sceptics, it seems pedagogic. It's almost patronising and arrogant to those who face incredulity when it comes to science or philosophy and an unnecessary crash course in "reason 101" to those that don't. In all honesty, I'm unsure if writing this will produce the desired effect of communicating my position so that is understood (yet alone agreed with). Perhaps I should settle by, at the very least, highlighting that the misunderstanding merely exists? I'll try my best to be plain, which has had little success so far.
What's the Difference Between Scientific Claims and Supernatural Ones?
Requesting a little more evidence when it comes to ghosts and reiki does not make you close-minded, just as believing in phenomena without sufficient evidence doesn't necessarily equate to open-mindedness. After all, you can’t believe everything you hear just to be “open-minded".
I'm often told that scientific explanations lack curiosity. However, I'd argue that wanting to explain a phenomenon and get to its cause is the very essence of curiosity itself… Settling for an improbable solution without testing it against other theories and factors begins to sound like the opposite of open-mindedness. Saying that science cannot explain something therefore it's an open game is also a bit of non-sequitur. What this amounts to is essentially "I can't explain something... therefore I can explain it".
When no credible peer-reviewed journal has produced evidence for psychic healing or no credible evidence has ever been found for the existence of the paranormal, the default position is to assume their non-existence or that their explanations lie in the "possible but undiscovered". Within the realm of proven causes of paranormal occurrences we have great feats of trickery, environmental causes, hallucinations and mass hysteria. After that, we could point to undiscovered but possible causes - spores, toxins or mental phenomena. Alternative medicines are simply medicines that are unproven to work and the natural response to their use should be alarm. That’s why doctors are struck off if caught using them and why they remain “alternative” and not simply “medicine”. The idea that ancient remedies have been overlooked or rediscovered is erroneous - most have been adapted. Most herbal medicines are now used in things like aspirin and practices like sati are now incorporated in MBSR. There are very strong reasons why virtually no members of qualified scientific communities accept these practices and their underpinning beliefs. Normalising or supporting the use of failed or inferior medicines through unqualified hands is not a personality quirk; it is potentially dangerous.
Others say that all this scepticism is simply boring or at least, "not nice". I'm never sure how to respond to this (apart from saying it isn’t). A world without gods and ghosts is good enough, in my eyes. Our experiences, relationships and endeavours are magical enough, without throwing witchcraft into the mix. The other issue is more difficult: How do you explain to someone that just because something is nice doesn't make it true? Without sounding like a twat, that is. “How can you believe in nothing, that’s awful”? I didn’t realise there was a choice. We just can't invent realities because we find them attractive.... or at least I can't seem to. I'm never sure what people are getting at here or what the appropriate response is. Suggestions are welcome.
It all comes down to the difference between natural phenomena and the supernatural. The supernatural, by definition, are occurrences that suspend the known laws of nature. When an assertion breaks these laws or is incredibly improbable then the person offering the idea faces a burden of proof. It is on them to prove the claim, since they are the one asserting it. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There are various versions of this maxim but they all hold the same premise. With scientific statements there is no such burden - I would argue it to be the neutral position. This is how the justice system works after all, innocent until proven guilty and few people have a problem with that in principle.
There are a million different videos out there, eloquently explaining why the secular scientific and rational positions are true in this sense of the word. Here are three videos that I consider good entry points into these ideas if you aren't a sceptic and have made it this far. They offer the benefits and legitimacy of scepticism in a way that is much more coherent and captivating than myself:
A measured and entertaining look at homeopathy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Z_zYzJwoo
A TED talk on the science behind paranormal occurrences told through a personal story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8yhaFd_GpM
Why “you should be more open-minded” is an unfair suggestion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Its odd that people are happy to appeal to science to back up their ideas in some areas but willing to ignore it in others. Either one agrees with empiricism on principle or doesn't and any bias surely renders the whole exercise moot. Appealing to science is common on matters of climate change, mocking anti-vaxxers, etc. Science is, in terms of public conversation, the best way of arriving at a notion of truth, after all. If your beliefs happen to fall outside of it, they’re not blasphemous or lacking credibility but their meaning is personal; at least until they have a little more evidence. I wouldn't want to take these beliefs away, even if that were possible. The world is full of all kinds of people with eclectic views on the world and is all the richer for it. However, when they are taught or offered as truth, or involve harm then I certainly wouldn't encourage them and would probably discourage them. When money or vulnerable people are involved, that's also a no-no. In terms of what people can demonstrate, it is unreasonable and unfair for people to demand anecdotes (since you weren't there) or other hopes and opinions as fact.
But, if one doesn't "believe" in evidence then its probably going to take a better writer than me to convince them... or at least much more time and effort. I'd be stretching this piece indeed if I were to argue empiricism; that beliefs are weighted to evidence, in a way that could convince the unconvinced on this issue. Then all the other things that make scientific statements better than anecdotes - reliability, repeatability, controlled conditions and the like. Some people, of course, would talk of conspiracies within science to omit certain truths such as the flatness of the Earth. Ockham's Razor is a great tool in response (that the simplest explanation is the best). Usually, such an idea of distrust rests on a misunderstanding or inexperience of science. Some argue that scientific truths are contextual and subject to revision over time for instance. That doesn’t quite make it fair game though. One of the strongest and most eloquent proponents of this is a scientist named Thomas Kuhn, but as you can guess from his profession he understood this not to be a weakness of science, nor a cause to reject what it had to say. It is still the best narrative, he just wanted to point out the fallacy in thinking knowledge is entirely cumulative and linear.
Grounding the legitimacy of the scientific worldview, and therefore why the scientific method is the best way of determining truth, is probably above and beyond the limitations of this informal and short blog piece. But when people use vague evidence but not the scientific method to demonise the "negativity" lacking belief it truly perplexes me. Arguing out of a refusal to have a position and wilful lack of hubris to be told my "position" is arrogant is an odd situation to be put in. And when it comes from close friends and family, even more so. In a world without god, authority often comes from consensus and collective conversation and it worries me where, not only is the consensus not there, but people have no clue how to reach it or what the statements they offer mean to other people.
But, ultimately I may as well be offering faith statements; true to myself but categorically unconvincing to those who don't resonate with its premise. This is irony of course because my views are not faith-based, but I see a world where people can increasingly no longer comprehend the difference (and don’t even care to). I do wonder where this brings public conversation and issues like secularism. Luckily, we still seem to understand the burden of proof when subjectivity enters an objective conversation in overtly dangerous or harmful ideas. When it comes to fundamentalists and anti-vaxxers, we ask them to have proof or keep their opinions tucked away... for now. Suffice to say, I'm no longer on an ill-founded crusade to change people's view about what they might believe, but to ask for understanding and acceptance of what, and more importantly why, I don't believe.