The diplomatic perspective on the skeptical Popefest

It’s been a few interesting days for the skeptical community’s Twitter and blogs. For the record, I was frequently appalled at the discussion. Some did a fine job of keeping a cool head (like Heidi Anderson) and others just held their tongue. Others (like Daniel Loxton) continued their well-played understated calm. That pleased me.

Expletive-filled tweets do not please me. Arrogance and ‘tude makes me grouchy.

Skepticism to me is about the process. We can get together as a group and do something for positive change via that process. But, let us remain civil.

I expect Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and PZ Myers to raise the banner of atheistic outrage and go forth. But, I wouldn’t expect the same from major skeptic groups. It’s as much about skepticism as it is about pop culture or sociology. It’s an issue for all of us. So, we are angry and we want the world to know.

I liked how Phil Plait put it all. I agree with his POV. Check it out.

Bad Astronomy blog: The Pope, the Church and Skepticism

This was a learning experience for all.

About idoubtit

Fluent in science, animals, paranormal culture. Expert in weird news.

0 thoughts on “The diplomatic perspective on the skeptical Popefest

    1. I’m not talking about being PC. I don’t agree that we need to do that even though that was suggested in Phil’s post.

      My “skepticism” is a process. The skeptical movement (in my mind) is about getting people to adopt that process. I’ve felt this way since the early 90s. I’m no newcomer.

      I consider skepticism to be in the science realm so I don’t see how that translates at all to “arrest the Pope”. Again, I do expect people like Dawkins & Hitchens to speak for ATHEISTS but not for the skeptical community. And, I’m fine with whatever opinions they have or how they do it – it takes all kinds to reach all people. However, I’ve made a distinction in my own mind about atheist activism and skeptical activism. They are very different to me. Others have muddled these together.

      Funny, I’m usually more of a lumper than a splitter but, in this case, I see distinct communities with distinct values and goals. Their overlap has been one of the issues at play here. Unprofessional rhetoric is another.

  1. I agree that scepticism is a process & it obviously follows that the sceptical movement would encourage individuals to embrace that process.
    I also agree that scepticism lies within the science realm as it is my understanding that a sceptics viewpoint would be based on rationality, objectivity, actual facts, balance of probabilities etc.
    I do not expect Dawkins & Hitchens to “speak” for the atheists – who made them the spokesmen for this large group?
    Whatever “community” we belong to it is our duty to remain civil, respectful, calm & collected. Violence in any form achieves NOTHING regardless of how vile the subject

    1. Granted. A subset of atheists look to Dawkins and Hitchens as spokespeople, not all.

      I agree that there is no reason why uncivil discourse is tolerated. In terms of even the National (U.S.) situation, if you fail to speak out against assholiness, it just gets worse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *