Atheism, critical thinking and conspiracy theories

SamHarris

I'm curious as to how far your critical thinking on spiritual matters filters through to other ideas.

Is there any athiest here who readily subscribe to any/many conspiracy theories? Usually it seems to me conspiracy theories are politically motivated (I dont like that group, therefore they must have been responsible/ twisted the story somehow).

Just interested to see if the level of rational thinking and skepticisim atheists apply to religion is used elswhere (I guess this will very much depend on how you came to be an atheist).

SamHarris

SamHarris wrote: »

I'm curious as to how far your critical thinking on spiritual matters filters through to other ideas.

Is there any athiest here who readily subscribe to any/many conspiracy theories? Usually it seems to me conspiracy theories are politically motivated (I dont like that group, therefore they must have been responsible/ twisted the story somehow).

Just interested to see if the level of rational thinking and skepticisim atheists apply to religion is used elswhere (I guess this will very much depend on how you came to be an atheist).

Bill Maher is a great example of an atheist who is not rational. He buys into the whole vaccines cause autism crap and has had to clarify that he isn't a germ theory denialist, despite some comments to the contrary.
Made even worse when he was given a science award from the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

Beruthiel

SamHarris wrote: »

Is there any athiest here who readily subscribe to any/many conspiracy theories?

You mean like the wack job notions they have over in the CT Forum?
Eh no.

bnt

Vaccines seem to be a real blind spot for Maher, and he's just wrong on this. He made some remarks last year that sounded to me like a reaction to the big H1N1 vaccination push at the time, but that wasn't the first time.

On other matters, though, he seems to have his head screwed on straight. I'm trying to find the text of his "New Rules" piece about the recent rallies, which was spot-on about the unbalanced polarization of US media. (The Republicans are so far to the "right" that the "middle" is not the "middle" any more, but is also badly skewed to the "right", and you can't say that both sides are equally crazy.) He also said (paraphrased) "when it comes to the climate, I'm not listening to politicians, I'm listening to climate scientists".

More Maher on the climate here:

Media, could you please stop pitting the ignorant vs. the educated and framing it as a "debate." The other day, I saw a professor from the Union of Concerned Scientists face off against a distinguished expert on Tea Partying, whose brilliant analysis, recently published in the New England Journal of Grasping at Straws, was that we shouldn't teach climate science in schools because kids find it scary. As they should. I hope they're peeing in their pants.

The last decade, year, and month are all the hottest on record. Then there's the killing of the oceans, floods, Category 5 hurricanes, heat waves, giant wild fires, and the vanishing water supply. You know, the little things. And yet deniers say, it's just a theory. As is gravity. For progress to happen, certain things have to become not an issue anymore, so we can go on to the next issue. Evolution was an issue until overwhelming consensus among scientists made it not an issue.

The Mad Hatter

bnt wrote: »

Vaccines seem to be a real blind spot for Maher, and he's just wrong on this. He made some remarks last year that sounded to me like a reaction to the big H1N1 vaccination push at the time, but that wasn't the first time.

On other matters, though, he seems to have his head screwed on straight. I'm trying to find the text of his "New Rules" piece about the recent rallies, which was spot-on about the unbalanced polarization of US media. (The Republicans are so far to the "right" that the "middle" is not the "middle" any more, but is also badly skewed to the "right", and you can't say that both sides are equally crazy.) He also said (paraphrased) "when it comes to the climate, I'm not listening to politicians, I'm listening to climate scientists".

Yeah, you just wish he'd say the same about medical scientists.

A lot of atheist libertarians seem to have problems with climate science. I'm not sure if this ventures into full-blown conspiracy theory, but certainly many of the debates seem to follow similar lines to creationist debates.

In response to the OP, I don't think many conspiracy theorists would really identify themselves as such. No-one thinks their own beliefs are crazy.

bnt

bnt wrote: »

Vaccines seem to be a real blind spot for Maher, and he's just wrong on this. He made some remarks last year that sounded to me like a reaction to the big H1N1 vaccination push at the time, but that wasn't the first time.

On other matters, though, he seems to have his head screwed on straight. I'm trying to find the text of his "New Rules" piece about the recent rallies, which was spot-on about the unbalanced polarization of US media. (The Republicans are so far to the "right" that the "middle" is not the "middle" any more, but is also badly skewed to the "right", and you can't say that both sides are equally crazy.) He also said (paraphrased) "when it comes to the climate, I'm not listening to politicians, I'm listening to climate scientists".

More Maher on the climate here:

That's the thing though, saying all these things just sounds totally hypocritical when he believes the exact opposite in regards to medicine.
Made doubly worse when he makes fun of "wacky beliefs."

Waking-Dreams

I would say, in learning about different cognitive biases (which are pointed out as to why some people choose religion) it has helped me to question other areas too. I mean, years ago, I used to believe in the whole JFK assassination thing (courtesy of Bill Hicks’ routine) but after getting well-read on Michael Shermer’s books/articles about scepticism and popular conspiracy theories, I did go back and think maybe its bunk.

I didn’t have a strong emotional investment in the CT which meant discarding it wasn’t such a big deal. My guess is that when people are too emotionally invested in their ideas, it’s much harder for them to let go and admit that they believed in a lie.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies

strobe

SamHarris wrote: »

I'm curious as to how far your critical thinking on spiritual matters filters through to other ideas.

Is there any athiest here who readily subscribe to any/many conspiracy theories? Usually it seems to me conspiracy theories are politically motivated (I dont like that group, therefore they must have been responsible/ twisted the story somehow).

Just interested to see if the level of rational thinking and skepticisim atheists apply to religion is used elswhere (I guess this will very much depend on how you came to be an atheist).

Hmmmm after thinking about this for a bit I actually think it could possibly be the case that Atheists would be more open to 'conspiracy theories' than theists. Not that they would be more likely to believe every theory that comes along but would be more likely to consider them. I mean religion is the 'party line' the generally excepted consensus for most of us growing up and it's only by questioning this and refusing to except the general consensus and just go along with what the majority think that we start down the road to becoming atheists.

Whereas theists (in most cases) are the ones that went with what the majority believed and what the people in authority told them was the truth, without questioning 'the party line' as much.

So yeah it could be possible that the type of people that remain or become theists are the type that just listen to authority and the majority as opposed to atheists being the type of people unwilling to just accept the convention and go with the flow etc.

The phrase 'conspiracy theory' has very negative connotations, probably deservedly. When people hear it they think "aliens being held captive in Area 51", "scientists fabricating evidence for evolution", "aspartame makes you want to spend money" etc. I'd imagine anyone that came to atheism through 'critical thinking' etc would be very unlikely to buy into these things.

But if you are just talking being open to ideas that challenge convention and the accepted 'party line' then maybe atheists would be more open to this than theists in general?

Maybe not, I dunno.

simplistic2

I used to have a belief in the whole NWO is trying to control everything when I was younger but on further reading of political theories and psychology I have realized I was just acribing a label to something that already exits governments and oligarchs around the world plundering and murdering people for wealth ,power and control.

Psychologically you have to ask what is it that conspiracy theorists get out of hanging onto these ideas? Well they get to be constantly rejected by their peers and also a feeling a desperate need to prove something to somebody.
For some pop psychology Id say these people have suffered childhood abuse by their parents from being rejected or scorned for bringing up ideas or for showing interest in a topic that the parents didn't approve of. It is widely know that people that who suffer abuse as a child emulate this when they are older. Like the case study Alice Miller did on Hitlers childhood describing how he was savagely beaten only to turn his anger onto the world in his adult years.

So the conspiracy theorist continues this self inflected rejection and humiliation into adulthood because they are simply stuck on auto pilot.

Waking-Dreams

I think it was King Mob who once said in the Irish Sceptics forum, that the CT people all espouse, “question authority”, “don’t believe their lies”, except when it comes to questioning their own wacky ideas.

The big bad corporate media vs. conspiracy theory websites.

There’s money to be made out of both. How many CT writers have published books?

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

A lot of atheist libertarians seem to have problems with climate science.

I strongly suspect that their problems with climate science derive from their libertarian beliefs, not from their atheist beliefs.

The more that I see of self-described libertarians -- people like Rand Paul and Sarah Palin on in the fringes -- the more I think that libertarianism and libertarians are seriously bonkers.

amacachi

robindch wrote: »

I strongly suspect that their problems with climate science derive from their libertarian beliefs, not from their atheist beliefs.

The more that I see of self-described libertarians -- people like Rand Paul and Sarah Palin on in the fringes -- the more I think that libertarianism and libertarians are seriously bonkers.

Why thank you very much. Of course if it wasn't for government inflating the level of wealth available we would have anywhere near as high emissions as we do have, but let's not look at the big picture.


In general I don't subscribe to specific CTs but I won't just look at a headline to make up my mind. Well, except when it's about 2012 or Planet X or reptillians. :pac:

Rabble Rabble

CLimate change denial is one of the supposed conspiracy theories where actual scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and computer scientists are sceptical. Meanwhile the normal suspects - the ones who hate industry, and see AIDS drugs as a conspiracy etc. - are compliant with the established view. The establishment view is anti-Capitalist, and anti-Industry ( it is, also, anti-Modern).

Why are some scientists denialsts? Mann's graph, the quasi-religious nature of the argument, the lack of normal scientific give and take ( the deniers are treated like heretics). And there are other theories which could explain some of the recent warmth.

The best poster on the Weather thread - and a metrologist for years - M.T. Cranium is a sceptic, as is Bastardi in the US, as are many meteorologists, physicists etc.

simplistic2

robindch wrote: »

I strongly suspect that their problems with climate science derive from their libertarian beliefs, not from their atheist beliefs.

The more that I see of self-described libertarians -- people like Rand Paul and Sarah Palin on in the fringes -- the more I think that libertarianism and libertarians are seriously bonkers.

Generally libertarians have a problem with the fact that scientists mostly receive grants from government and if they don't produce the results that are expected then the grant tap is turned off.

Id conspiracy theorists are closer to the truth then your average sign waving voter that believes religiously that the government is there to actually solve problems. In fact the belief in democracy is far more irrational and dangerous then believing there was no moon landing.

SamHarris

strobe wrote: »

Hmmmm after thinking about this for a bit I actually think it could possibly be the case that Atheists would be more open to 'conspiracy theories' than theists. Not that they would be more likely to believe every theory that comes along but would be more likely to consider them. I mean religion is the 'party line' the generally excepted consensus for most of us growing up and it's only by questioning this and refusing to except the general consensus and just go along with what the majority think that we start down the road to becoming atheists.

Whereas theists (in most cases) are the ones that went with what the majority believed and what the people in authority told them was the truth, without questioning 'the party line' as much.

So yeah it could be possible that the type of people that remain or become theists are the type that just listen to authority and the majority as opposed to atheists being the type of people unwilling to just accept the convention and go with the flow etc.

The phrase 'conspiracy theory' has very negative connotations, probably deservedly. When people hear it they think "aliens being held captive in Area 51", "scientists fabricating evidence for evolution", "aspartame makes you want to spend money" etc. I'd imagine anyone that came to atheism through 'critical thinking' etc would be very unlikely to buy into these things.

But if you are just talking being open to ideas that challenge convention and the accepted 'party line' then maybe atheists would be more open to this than theists in general?

Maybe not, I dunno.

I agree that a true rational thinker should approach a CT with an open mind. However that does not mean that after reviewing the evidence (or lack thereof) a critical thinker should hesitate to dismiss said CT as bull****. If thats what is warranted, it should be done post haste.

Interesting point, but an unwillingness to accept the party line (after critically evaluating the evidence) is different than dissagreeing with the official story just to disagree with the official story.

I guess this depends on what motivated a particular atheist to take the position that they do, that the overt religiousity of society made them want to "stick it to the man" or if they evaluated the evidence and found it wanting.

Shenshen

SamHarris wrote: »

I'm curious as to how far your critical thinking on spiritual matters filters through to other ideas.

Is there any athiest here who readily subscribe to any/many conspiracy theories? Usually it seems to me conspiracy theories are politically motivated (I dont like that group, therefore they must have been responsible/ twisted the story somehow).

Just interested to see if the level of rational thinking and skepticisim atheists apply to religion is used elswhere (I guess this will very much depend on how you came to be an atheist).

Put it this way, I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theory as such. But then I also don't necessarily believe the official explanation of a lot of things 100% either.
I'm sceptical either way, and prefer to draw my own conclustions from the information available while allowing for the fact that I will never have all of the information.

The Mad Hatter

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

CLimate change denial is one of the supposed conspiracy theories where actual scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and computer scientists are sceptical.

What do mathematicians, engineers and computer scientists have to do with it?

I admit that there are real objections to climate science, and not all the problems have been solved, but the real objections are standing on thinner and thinner ice (pun intended), and the numbers of climate scientists who accept them are getting fewer and fewer.

Michael Shermer and Bjorn Lomborg, two of the strongest rational voices opposed to the theory, have recently come to accept the evidence for anthropogenic climate change as too strong to deny. I'm not saying this proves it's true, but it's certainly worth considering if you're on the other side of the fence.

Meanwhile the normal suspects - the ones who hate industry, and see AIDS drugs as a conspiracy etc. - are compliant with the established view. The establishment view is anti-Capitalist, and anti-Industry ( it is, also, anti-Modern).

Perhaps, but not them exclusively. In the meantime, those who stand to make the greatest loss over climate science funnel vast amounts of money into organisations designed to deny it.

I find it interesting that in the next paragraph, you use the term "quasi-religious" to describe the argument while you're almost worshipfully spelling "capitalist", "industry" and "modern" with upper-case letters.

Why are some scientists denialsts? Mann's graph, the quasi-religious nature of the argument, the lack of normal scientific give and take ( the deniers are treated like heretics). And there are other theories which could explain some of the recent warmth.

True, but they seem to be inconsistent, and to only look at the smaller picture.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Generally libertarians have a problem with the fact that scientists mostly receive grants from government and if they don't produce the results that are expected then the grant tap is turned off.

This is far more true of those "scientific" organisations that are funded by corporations, which are generally set up with a particular goal in mind (such showing that tobacco smoke can't be linked to cancer) than those funded publicly. Besides, science in general is working better and faster now than it ever has in history. This could hardly be true if scientists were only telling the government what they wanted to hear.

Id conspiracy theorists are closer to the truth then your average sign waving voter that believes religiously that the government is there to actually solve problems. In fact the belief in democracy is far more irrational and dangerous then believing there was no moon landing.

"Sign-waving voter who believes religiously that the government is there to actually solve problems"

...



(All this with apologies to robindch and Dades, here we go again.)

robindch

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Why are some scientists denialsts? Mann's graph, the quasi-religious nature of the argument, the lack of normal scientific give and take ( the deniers are treated like heretics).

The issue of climate change has been made into a religious argument by the denialist side, quite possibly because many of them are religious themselves. Also, there is, of course, plenty of scientific give and take, as there is with any scientific topic (you just seem to be unaware of it going on). I don't notice that physicists who deride flat-earthers are labelled "establishment" or engaged in a "religious argument". While the denialists who feel themselves treated "like heretics" are treated that way for much the same reason that scientists who label themselves "creationists" are treated the way they're treated.

The big difference with this debate is that if the current global scientific consensus is true, then the oil barons who fund certain sections of the denialist industry may well lose money and quite understandably, they're upset about it. The Koch brothers, by the way, are amongst the immensely wealthy nutters who bankroll the lunatic Tea Party outfit which -- surprise, surprise -- is in almost complete denial about climate change.

It's (almost) quite funny that the CT community can't bring themselves to notice a conspiracy here.

.

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

(All this with apologies to robindch and Dades, here we go again.)

Hey, it's been months since we last did climate change

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

I strongly suspect that their problems with climate science derive from their libertarian beliefs, not from their atheist beliefs.

The more that I see of self-described libertarians -- people like Rand Paul and Sarah Palin on in the fringes -- the more I think that libertarianism and libertarians are seriously bonkers.

What about Michael Shermer and Penn Jillette, though?

I think that as a philosophy it has some good ideas, as do anarchism and socialism, but implemented completely would be, and has been, an utter catastrophe (as have been anarchism and socialism). You could say that this is because the system gets corrupted from within and weren't "true" whatever, as socialists say of the USSR and libertarians of Chile, but that's pretty much bound to happen anyway.

Rabble Rabble

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Michael Shermer and Bjorn Lomborg, two of the strongest rational voices opposed to the theory, have recently come to accept the evidence for anthropogenic climate change as too strong to deny. I'm not saying this proves it's true, but it's certainly worth considering if you're on the other side of the fence.

Bjorn Lomborg, who I have read for a long time, did not deny a 2 degree C increase in a 100 years, ever. It was the point of the Sceptical Environmentalist that that would not be a big issue, but not that it wouldn't happen. He hasn't recanted. He just re-phrased how he said what he said.

My point was simply that the climate sceptics are not the same people as the homeopaths, and the vaccine causes autism folks. ( Etc.).

( Of course, many climate sceptics are nuts but not all).

Rabble Rabble

robindch wrote: »

The big difference with this debate is that if the current global scientific consensus is true, then the oil barons who fund certain sections of the denialist industry may well lose money and quite understandably, they're upset about it. The Koch brothers, by the way, are amongst the immensely wealthy nutters who bankroll the lunatic Tea Party outfit which -- surprise, surprise -- is in almost complete denial about climate change.


.

Thats a fallacious argument in and of itself. The sceptics argue the same about government funding for the establishment position.

( I am clearly staying neutral here, by the way).

The science is true independently of funding. In fact the argument by association here is exactly the same as AIDs denialists - the evil pharmaceutical companies who also did !THISBADTHING!, and who would lose money if people did not believe in AIDS are, of course, going to promote the idea that HIV causes AIDS. Which is correct, they would. And they did.

But HIV causes AIDS regardless of who is funded, or Cui bono, it is true regardless of the beneficiaries. And climate science is true or false regardless of the funding from either source.

Rabble Rabble

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Thats a fallacious argument in and of itself. The sceptics argue the same about government funding for the establishment position.

( I am clearly staying neutral here, by the way).

The science is true independently of funding. In fact the argument by association here is exactly the same as AIDs denialists - the evil pharmaceutical companies who also did !THISBADTHING!, and who would lose money if people did not believe in AIDS are, of course, going to promote the idea that HIV causes AIDS. Which is correct, they would. And they did.

Except the examples Robinch gave aren't of people funding actual research but rather funding campaigns to undermine the real science.

Coriolanus

I know an atheist who believes in ghosts.

Yeah. We don't talk about it anymore.

liamw

Nevore wrote: »

I know an atheist who believes in ghosts.

Karl Pilkington?

The Mad Hatter

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Bjorn Lomborg, who I have read for a long time, did not deny a 2 degree C increase in a 100 years, ever. It was the point of the Sceptical Environmentalist that that would not be a big issue, but not that it wouldn't happen. He hasn't recanted. He just re-phrased how he said what he said.

He's recently called climate change "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and suggested investing $100bn a year to alleviate the problem. If this was his position in The Sceptical Environmentalist, then I withdraw my earlier statement. It's good to know he's been on the right track all along.

My point was simply that the climate sceptics are not the same people as the homeopaths, and the vaccine causes autism folks. ( Etc.).

I don't believe anyone said they were.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

The more that I see of self-described libertarians -- people like Rand Paul and Sarah Palin on in the fringes -- the more I think that libertarianism and libertarians are seriously bonkers.

These people give all libertarians a bad name, even those who live in parts of the world where libertarian means something completely different: in the US, it's defined as right-wing, socially conservative, religious lunacy. Everywhere else (especially Europe), it's usually associated with the left (sometimes centre), individual liberty and agnosticism/atheism.

I'm a strong libertarian, an atheist and a strict fan of the scientific method. Palin and her cohorts in the 'hymens are holy' league make me sick.

ChocolateSauce

King Mob wrote: »

Bill Maher is a great example of an atheist who is not rational. He buys into the whole vaccines cause autism crap and has had to clarify that he isn't a germ theory denialist, despite some comments to the contrary.
Made even worse when he was given a science award from the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

A terrible pity, because when it comes to politics he is as sharp as a scalpel. Except when it comes to Israel, where he displays a willingness to ignore some of their more problematic behaviour.

Rabble Rabble

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

A terrible pity, because when it comes to politics he is as sharp as a scalpel. Except when it comes to Israel, where he displays a willingness to ignore some of their more problematic behaviour.

Again - not rational. Tribal.


I bet nobody is rational, fully.