A few interesting posts over the website of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) on the topic of how skepticism and atheism are not directly connected. The series started with a rant from Jeff Wagg about a discount promotion at Denny’s aimed at Christians. Personally I don’t see any problem with it – just like I wouldn’t if the promotion were aimed at local junior baseball teams, or pensioners…it’s all just marketing to me – but Wagg’s post revived some contentious issues on the JREF’s stance towards religion.
As such, Wagg reposted some older posts which are well worth checking out, which “demonstrate how skepticism – as the JREF sees it – can be a big tent”. The first was James Randi’s “Why I Deny Religion, How Silly and Fantastic It Is, and Why I’m a Dedicated and Vociferous Bright“. The second is titled “One Voice of the JREF“, and is by Hal Bidlack, a committed skeptic who also holds Deist views:
At TAM5, no less than three well-intended individuals attempted to ‘save’ me from my non-atheism, one even had pamphlets, with no less ardor than religious zealots bring to their cause. Some of my dear friends attempt to somehow make it “ok” for me to be a Deist by trying to convince me that it’s really just the same as atheism, I just don’t quite understand it correctly. They apologize on my behalf, and condone my naiveté, sure that I will come around some day.
My belief in a non-intervening god is, they tell me, just the same as not believing in God at all, and therefore we are on the same side. I sharply differ, in that the key issue for me is God/no-god, not the form therein. I believe I should be able to decide what I believe. I am tired of being told I am stupid, but I can get better.
Bidlack’s post recounts his own life based in science and skepticism, but also speaks eloquently about the experiences and tragedies he’s endured (including 9-11 and his wife’s cancer), leading him to the “odd sense of something greater than myself, of being part of a remarkable universe.”
Lots of discussion in the comments threads as well. A key question might be though – if organised skepticism has no trouble with Deism, how much more ground are they forced to ‘relinquish’ in terms of ‘irrational beliefs’ which people hold due to intuition or because of the positive influence on their lives?
Like much else, I always seem to end up at the maxim ‘if it does no harm’…