The relationship between skepticism and atheism is complicated. For starters, skepticism is a process with which you evaluate information and claims, while atheism is merely the absence of belief in the supernatural claims of various religions in regard to a “higher power”. Despite the fact that we all agree that skepticism is more of a “toolkit” to evaluate claims rather than an actual belief, invariably there are bound to be strong correlations between hard-nosed skepticism and disbelief in God.

There are serious skeptics who are religious, and undoubtedly these people are upset that skeptic conventions are being domninated entirely be religious discussions. Jeff Wagg feels strongly about the fact that Skepticon is being invaded with talks that, while critical of religious belief, may have too little to do with skepticism. He called his article “Are Atheists Delusional”. I’ll answer that question Jeff. No, we really aren’t.

Yes, there are lots of aspects of skepticism that have nothing to do with religion. I think, however, that the biggest issue today is how uncritical, faith based reasoning has allowed the majority of the population of this planet to associate themselves with one religion or another. Their beliefs, unsupported by any evidence, are so sacred that society is expected to tollerate and even celebrate views that are, more often than not, in complete opposition to science and skepticism in general.

I think the bigger problem here is that the inclusion of atheism is creating a devide in a community that also has religious believers as members. The perhaps uncomfortable discussion that never seems to take place, namely that faith is in direct opposition to skepticism, is now front and center, and it’s bound to leave a lot of folks angry about the “atheist takeover”.

Jeff claims that skepticism is entirely a “scientific endeavor”, and that God is an untestable hypothesis beyond the purview of skepticism, but that’s simply untrue. Religions make claims about the physical world that are testable: prayer has an effect, a virgin gave birth to a human, and miracles happen, to name only a few. Sure, the Spinozan God that is abstract and impersonal is untestable, but so is the flying spaghetti monster and we have no qualms about rejecting these kinds of hypothesis. Why does religion and God get a free ride on this skeptic train?

If you’re religious and a skeptic, I’m sorry to say that you’re shitty at both. Rejecting the claims of iridology, homeopathy, and acupuncture but accepting that a god-man was born of a virgin and resurrected after his physical death, means that you really haven’t been applying the “toolkit of skepticism” to all aspects of your belief. Odds are you compartmentalized that part of your beliefs in order to avoid uncomfortable questions about your own faith. It sucks for those skeptics out there that also have a belief in God, but as a species we can’t keep coddling childish beliefs that enslave minds. You may not like it, but trust me when I say that the atheist invasion has just begun. Is it a coincidence that Skepticon is now bigger than TAM and CFI’s conferences?

Spread the outrage

It looks like science is finally pushing back hard against the pseudoscience that is homeopathy. The British Medical Association has come out publicly and stated that it’s nothing more than “witchcraft”, and that the National Health Service should cease to fund this quackery.

Homeopathy is witchcraft. It is a disgrace that nestling between the National Hospital for Neurology and Great Ormond Street [in London] there is a National Hospital for Homeopathy which is paid for by the NHS”.

Already strapped for cash, the NHS is looking for ways to trim the fat, and there’s no bigger dead weight than the ineffectual vials of water that pass as medicine. Of course, there’s always some idiot trying to argue that even if homeopathy is no different than a placebo, the mental health of patients is vastly improved by its consumption. This, homeopaths argue, somehow justifies the public paying for it, even when no measurable effect has ever been demonstrated.

Homeopathy helps thousands of people who are not helped by conventional care. We don’t want it to be a substitute for mainstream care, but when people are thinking about making cuts to funding, I think they need to consider public satisfaction, and see that homeopathy has a place in medicine

“Public satisfaction” is not the way you measure the relative success of medical treatment. It either works or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, it has no business calling itself “medicine” in the first place. I’m sick and tired of the argument that because helpless morons feel better after consuming sugar pills, that somehow “alternative medicine” is just as effective as conventional treatments (did I mention how ridiculously expensive nonsense can be?).

If you want to call yourself “medicine”, you have to pass the rigors of the scientific method, and since Homeopathy has utterly failed ever single attempt to show a demonstrable effect, it should be tossed aside like so many of its quack predecessor, like phrenology, iridology, and crystal healing. Would any other of these failed treatments be considered effective if people claimed it helped them?

Spread the outrage

I received an email from the 10:23 team today asking for people in the UK to join their struggle to end the government’s subsidization of homeopathy. You might remember the group hilarious “mass suicide” protest just a few weeks back.

Their goal is to have the government follow the recommendation of all major scientific institutions that argue that the so-called effectiveness of homeopathy can be explained entirely by the placebo effect, and nothing more. If people want to consume water or sugar pills thinking it cures their ailments, they should do so without any public monies supporting this bullshit industry.

So to all you UK fans, get active and let the government know how you feel!

Spread the outrage

It never ceases to amaze me how utterly incapable some people are in admitting defeat. A few days ago, we recorded a bonus show reporting that a group of skeptics in Britain had staged a “mass suicide” at one of the largest pharmacy chain in the country. They consumed entire bottles of homeopathic “medicine” to demonstrate that they are no better than a placebo, arguing that Boots has no business selling what is essentially water as real medicine. Recently the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians responded by posting this up, and it’s worth a read if you want to have a good laugh:

Do these “skeptics” really think the public cares about Avogadro’s number [referring to the limit of how much substance is present in diluted form] when homeopathy has just significantly improved their toddler’s autism or offered help with any of a vast range of diseases which respond so well to homeopathic (and often not to conventional) treatment?

This is just another tantrum by the clueless wing of the scientific/medical community that can’t understand why the people don’t praise them for their ideological purity and courage, even when the fruits of their scientific labors rot like a brown banana. Note to protestors: maybe they’re just not that into you.

In other words, skeptics are big meanies who like to try and use science to ruin everyone’s good time. Don’t they know that people ignorant of the scientific method have continued to enjoy their products and attributed their body’s natural healing process to solutions that contain no trace amount of medicine at all? Who cares about intellectual integrity when you have “good feelings”?

Sad, just sad…
(props to James for the find)

Spread the outrage

Our love affair with alternative “medicines” still demonstrates the fact that as a species, we still have a lot of growing up to do. The persistence of reiki, acupuncture, crystals, homeopathy, and just about every other bullshit “medicine” is due mainly to the mysterious placebo effect, which seems to suggest that our bodies respond positively to treatments, even when they do nothing at all.

I think we can easily dissect this phenomenon if we accept the fact that human beings are social animals who require just as much comforting as real medicine. A person who visits a homeopath is often given a great deal of time and attention, much more than they would have going to the doctors. This simple act alone has a profound effect on the health of the “patient”, and it’s what makes fighting this flim-flam so difficult.

I think it’s sad that the gap between medicine and well being is being filled with nonsense. I would be lying if I claimed that it didn’t at least help some people heal faster, but I also can’t forget about all the people who have died because they chose alternative medicines rather than the real thing. I’ve often been asked “is it ok to believe in a lie if it’s comforting, or is it always better to tell the truth?”. On an individual level it’s hard to argue that the truth is better, but that’s only if you discount the external effect of one’s belief. Think about all the people who have died because they refused to listen to the truth about their diseases (Andy Kaufman, why did you fall for such a simple scam as psychic surgery?). Do you really believe that ignorance is a virtue, people?

Spread the outrage

Your back hurts, and you’ve tried a number of painkillers to relieve the pain. A friend suggests that you try an alternative form of medicine to cure your ailment. Like everyone else, you are skeptical of the medical industry and the collusion of big pharma and doctors. You head over to an acupuncturist, who pokes you in various places in your body, and a few days later the pain disappears. Naturally, you incorrectly infer that the reason you got better was because of the alternative therapy you tried.

It isn’t your fault that you made such a rookie mistake. Our bodies naturally heal themselves, so we’re likely to credit whatever we’re doing at the time as being the panacea. Like most people, you don’t really understand how medicines are developed. You just assume that evil pharmaceutical companies and their enslaved doctors are trying to force dangerous drugs down your throat (I won’t deny feeling that way sometimes). Meanwhile, your homeopath is gentle, kind, and takes the time to really listen to your concerns. It kind of makes them seem like the good guys. It’s just too bad the stuff they do is complete nonsense.

You see, whenever they try to develop a new medical treatment, a number of studies have to be perform to determine if the drug has any effects. Scientists use the double blind test in order to avoid interfering with their own results. In the scientific world, the double blind test is the gold standard of reliability, and it actually works.

Alternative therapies are alternative specifically because they are incapable of even passing the most basic double blind test. Study after study has revealed that there is no discernible effect from these therapies apart from the placebo effect. It’s why things like acupuncture, homeopathy, Reiki and others have not become “traditional medicine”. In science, we keep what works and discard what doesn’t.

Of course, there are still plenty of people that rely on these therapies to make a living. That’s why they must be extatic that a number of US Senators are pushing to have these althernative therapies included in health plans. Heading this unthinking mob is Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who thinks it’s high time the “discrimination against alternative healthcare practices” ends. If he has his way, anyone licensed by the state to practice their “therapies” could be fully included in people’s health care plans. If this goes through, it’ll be a good day for flim-flam.

Let’s stop thinking that the word “discriminate” is a bad thing. To discriminate is simple to “to recognize the difference between; distinguish”. Modern science had determined that alternative medicines have no basis in reality. Worst still, they continues to erode people’s confidence in modern medicine. Every year, poorly informed individuals  choose alternative treatments for serious medical conditions, with the results often being dangerous or sometimes fatal.

If you want your stupid alternative treatment to be mainstream, all you have to do is prove that it works using a double blind study. That’s it. If you can show that your medicine works, then it’s no longer “alternative”. See how simple that is?

Spread the outrage

I was asked a few days ago by the Colorado Gazette do do a series of email interviews on a variety of subjects. They wanted an Atheist’s perspective on a number of issues ranging from gay marriage to internet access, and I was happy to oblige. The responses I wrote were probably too lengthy and detailed for them to be able to publish, and so I asked them if I could post them up on the site for some of you readers that may find something of interest in them.

I have divided the interview in two parts; one available today, and the other that will be published tomorrow. It’s my hope that many of you will enjoy some of my rather unorthodox views on these subjects.

Q: What do you think of the current education system, and how it might be changed or improved?

Every day, scientists are discovering unique properties about the human brain. What is unfortunate is that as we learn more about how the mind works, we have failed to make modifications to our educational system to reflect these new facts. Consider how quickly and easily children can learn new languages; the minds of young children functions like a sponge in the first few years of life, and language skills are one of the first to develop. Yet, in spite of this, we send children to school to learn only one.

It’s difficult to know just what shape schools should have, but one thing is certain; we are not doing our children any service by under developing their skills. Many progressive schools recognize that mathematics and logic skills develop in children far later than artistic ones. These schools encourage children to pursue endeavors that will in turn help foster stronger, and more creative minds.

I believe that we need to do more to improve schools than what has been done in the past. It might mean making radical changes to the way that schools are managed, but we should not be surprised if this is necessary. As far as institutions go, modern schools are still the new kid on the block, and to think that the current system is the height of human achievement seems to me the height of hubris.

Q: Would you support the rights to teach children voodoo? How does this right differ (if at all) between biological parents, adoptive parents, public schools, private schools etc?

Religious traditions that differ radically from established rituals sometimes frighten us. This is because the visceral nature of some of these religions is a cultural snapshot of an age many of us have forgotten. We are no longer accustomed to literal sacrifices during our ceremonies. These traditions have, over time, been stylized and modernized so as to make them almost completely different. Consider Holy Communion for Catholics. Here the act of eating human flesh and drinking blood has been transformed into the eating of their symbols. However, according to Catholic doctrine, even these symbols are transformed into the actual flesh and blood of Christ during consumption. They call this “divine” act transubstantiation. Still, despite the shiny veneer of modernism, the primitive tradition of eating the sacrificed flesh and blood of a creature still remains. The difference in religions such as voodoo is that it had not been radically altered by the modern world.

I think there is a difference between “teaching” a kid about religion and forcing your belief on them. Parents raise their children to believe in the same things they do, but I believe that this is a disservice to them. If your religion is inherently true, than it should be up to the child to choose what to believe in when they are mature enough to do so. Little kids that are told from early childhood about God have not had the opportunity to think about the relative truth of these propositions on their own. As such, I believe that religion flourishes only because of the susceptibility and gullibility of children. I was raised to make up my own mind about the existence or non-existence of God. My beliefs differ from those of my parents, and I’m grateful that they respected my intelligence enough to allow me the chance to make up my own mind.
(more…)

Spread the outrage

I am often reminded that one does not win any popularity contests when attempting to shatter the delusions of others. I can certainly appreciate the fact that no one wants to believe that they might be wrong, especially if this belief represents a form of comfort. It is then that I carefully remind people that the truth is not a matter of popularity; we have plenty of examples in history of when popular beliefs have been held erroneously, often with tragic results. Perhaps, I argue, the old adage that “the truth shall set you free” applies to more then trying to avoid lying to others. Perhaps it also means that we need to stop lying to ourselves, even if we think these lies are comforting.

My particular rant, this day, concerns the rather archaic and antiquated practice known as alternative medicine. This ranges from a variety of activities from the laying on of hands to acupuncture; to the supposed healing energy of crystals and magnets, or evangelical ministers and their faith healing. They may differ in their respective rituals, but each one demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the human body and science in general. For them to be effective, those that engage in these activities must prescribe to a particular set of beliefs; either that a human being is capable of manipulating energy with their minds (and, subsequently, that energy is somehow responsible for healing), or that a higher power has endowed an individual with miraculous powers. This is what makes these beliefs alternative, and they differ significantly from their orthodox counterparts, who use the rigorous double blind study and hard research to demonstrate their effectiveness. One does not need to believe in penicillin to benefit from its curative properties.

It is my belief that it is primarily the lack of understanding about science that allows these myths to persist. I shall therefore try in earnest to educate as many people as possible, who themselves may be unaware of how traditional medicines work.

A relative of friend, when you are troubled by some ailment, may have at some time or another suggested to you the use of some alternative medicine to treat it. Homeopathy is perhaps the most popular alternative medicine, presumably because it is easy to obtain, and because the idea of ingesting a pill or liquid is so accepted in society. Homeopathic medicine is often available in pharmacies, which seem to legitimize their use. Somewhere, in your unconscious, you may have thought to yourself: well, perhaps there is something to this homeopathic treatment. After all, science doesn’t know everything, right?

It’s true, science doesn’t know everything. Science is a process which strives to understand the natural world, and it tests the validity of any claims made. Anything that is testable is fair ground. The notions of homeopathy are themselves testable, so they are not outside of the realm of science. So, you might wonder, how does homeopathy fair in the validity of their claims? Not well at all. To understand why, let us examine what their claims are specifically.

Homeopathy works on 3 very basic principles. The first, and most basic principle, is called the proof: essentially, any substance that causes a particular effect, (a particular plant, for instance, might cause swelling when eaten) will be noted for that effect. If a patient then displays symptoms that resemble the effect of that substance (like a swollen arm), then the homeopath would recommend that the patient then ingest this material. This is the principle that “like cures like”. The colloquialism that one must fight fire with fire comes to mind. Does it really seem wise to give someone a substance that would only cause more swelling? Have no fear, for the second principle of homeopathy is that of dilution. If the same patient with the swollen arm were to consult a homeopath, he would “prescribe” the same substance as before, but greatly diluted. Just what level of dilution makes the product safe for consumption? Well, enter the third, and presumably the most ridiculous principle of all (as though the first two weren’t silly enough); the greater the dilution, the more potent the medicine.

Yes, you read right. This is not a typo or slight from the author. Homeopaths actually believe that increasing levels of dilution dramatically changes (for the better) the potency of their medicine. If you organized a party at your house, and were suddenly confronted with the crisis of your fruit punch running out, you certainly would consider watering it down to try and save the day. You would not, however, assume that somehow the punch had suddenly become more potent. If the punch contained alcohol, you would not suddenly warn everyone that the increased dilution would increase the deleterious effect of the liquor. You would certainly be considered quite the comedian for entertaining your guests with such a notion. But just how diluted can homeopathic medicine be?

On the back of most homeopathic remedies, unbeknown to most individuals, the actual potency of their medicine is printed clearly. A typical example may include caffeine (often, hilariously enough, in their sleeping pills) ranging with a concentration of 10-30X. This represents to which degree the ingredient has been diluted. This means, if we take the most modest example, that for every caffeine molecule, there are 10(power of 30) (that’s 10 billion billion billion) molecules of something else, typically either water or, in the case of pills, wax. Some are so diluted, it would take a pill the size of the solar system in order to find at least one molecule of the active ingredient.

In order to circumvent this embarrassing oversight, homeopaths claim that the molecules of the medium (in most cases, water or wax) still contain the “memory” of whatever ingredient they purport to be using. This amounts to little more then magic. If every water molecule somehow “remembered” the properties of other substances that it was once part of, then each one would certainly have the property of almost every substance known to man. Molecules are routinely recycled. Odds are you are imbibing a molecule or two that passed through the bladder of some ancient dinosaur. I would hesitate to claim that Brontosaurus urine was good for your kidneys.

Spread the outrage

The Atheist Revolution has two posts on the topic of Atheist dating that I just HAVE to post up (and don’t forget to read the comments, they’re just as interesting). Jake (the Good Atheist himself) is constantly struggling with some of the issues and questions brought up by these posts, like “How do you respect people who believe in such dumb things?” And no, I’m not saying that believing in a god is necessarily dumb … this goes beyond religion and into other areas that atheists often have problems with: horoscopes, reiki, homeopathy, The Secret,  etc.

Spread the outrage