critical thinking

Over at Common Sense Atheism, Luke Muehlhauser shares how he "came out" and told his religious family about his atheism. It's a valuable experience; many, many people who lose religious faith (or realize they never had it) wrestle with the question of how to break the news to family. ("How do I tell them?" seems one of the most common questions asked by callers to atheist TV show The Atheist Experience.)

The comments below the post show lots of appreciation for Luke's tale, as well as the expected (but mostly short and civil) back-and-forth involving believers who find fault with the post. Until a comment by "Siamese", a loooong screed making God-filled claim after claim with, as you might guess, zero evidence or even argument. Out-of-thin-air assertions like these:

Heaven does last for eternity and those who chose a personal relationship with Jesus while on earth will be united with God. This unity does not imply the experience of pleasurable earthly activities; rather, it is an experience of selfless love and adoration for the God of all creation...

God desires a personal relationship with each human, in order for this relationship to occur he provided each human freedom of choice. If he had not given human beings the freedom to reject Him, all humans would go to heaven and be united with him, but their choice to be with him would have been a programmed fact...

Since God is loving and just he respects the decisions one makes and will eternally separate himself from this individual on judgment day...

And so on. Run of the mill stuff. What kills me about such blather, though – and what we too often led slide by without challenge to the claimant – is that the above claims are not only refuted by atheism, they're refuted by religion. It can't be said often or strongly enough: Every religious claim a believer can make is refuted first and foremost by the majority of religious believers not adhering to the claimant's particular minority faith/sect/denomination. When atheists want to refute a religious claim, they always have to get in line behind the throng of believers shouting "You've got that wrong" (often followed by further brilliant commentary such as "Infidel!", "Heretic", "Blasphemer!", "Hell-bound!", and the like).

Why should the atheist – or anyone – accept one minority claim over countless additional minority claims? The argument will typically bounce off the listener, but it has to be said again and again anyway. So here's my humble response left in the Common Sense Atheism comments: Readeth thou more

Amidst the ongoing laughable (and sad) politicization and screaming matches that have taken over cable news programming in the US, marketing guru Seth Godin recently pointed out the problem with cable news thinking:

It has nothing to do with fires or with politics. Instead, it amplifies the worst elements of emotional reaction:

Agreed. And to push the point, Seth then lists twelve of the specific faults behind the frothing pundits. It's an interesting look at the kind of thinking that undermines truthful reporting – and, I'll add, any efforts to arrive at truth, outside of journalism as well. 

In particular, I was immediately impressed by how the list maps almost perfectly to an outline of religious thinking. Here's Seth's list of the odorous characteristics of cable news thinking, with each item followed by a theological take: Readeth thou more

We all have a collection, great or small, of critical thinking tools to detect baloney. And yes, "everyone" includes the New Agers and Creationists too, even if their Altoid tin-sized thinking kits are half-missing, rusty, and only dragged out to debate used car salesmen or faraway American Idol judges. 

Those of us who treasure our kits are always questioning what we should pack inside. Fortunately, just as there's no shortage of recommendations on how to stuff the perfect outdoor survival kit or travel gadget kit, we're lucky to enjoy a wealth of smart thinkers willing to share the contents of their baloney detection toolboxes. 

Here's an overview of a few great ones: Readeth thou more

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
Podcast and resources for separating truth from untruth.

Pharyngula
Updated at a mad pace by biologist PZ Myers, a heavyweight in the blogging world and lightning rod for the enemies of reason. (The guy's a hell of a good writer, too.) Great to have this fantastic site on "our side".

Richard Dawkins' site
Richard Dawkins is a renowned scientist and ardent champion of reason. This site is a major gathering place for friends of reason.

Skeptoid
"Skeptoid is a podcast dedicated to furthering knowledge by blasting away the widespread pseudosciences that infect popular culture." Popular and for good reason.

Unreasonable Faith
Excellent blog by an ex-Christian - like this one, but much better.

Via the Richard Dawkins website:

Brian Dunning, creator of the Skeptoid podcast and author of the companion books Skeptoid: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena and Skeptoid 2: More Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena, takes his debunking skills to the video arena with a freely-distributable 40-minute work, Here Be Dragons: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Get the DVD or watch it on YouTube:

Brian's goal is to present a basic primer for skeptical thinking, and I think he does a great job of it. Listen yourself, for a look at why people believe silly stuff, and what we can do to battle nonsense.

Most interesting to me was a clear, 10-point list of "red flags" that warn of approaching pseudoscience nonsense. I'll list them here as a handy guide; watch the video for more detail and great examples of each.

Red flags warning of pseudoscience

1. Appeal to Authority

Celebrity endorsements, lab coats, fancy degrees or certifications... all distractions that point to the impressiveness of the claimant, not the truth of the claim. Readeth thou more

I don't know what this is all about; I nabbed it from here, a site which nabs things from elsewhere.

Legit or a joke? Who knows; the joke is that it could believably be either!