Friday, September 08, 2006

Heretics of freethought

Last week, John Loftus had to defend his promotion of Robert M. Price and Acharya S. About the same time, I saw a thread on Internet Infidels attacking Sam Harris. In both cases, the reason was for unorthodox opinions (from the point of view of your average nonbeliever). I think it's worth reproducing my responses here:
New Agers are definitely outside the skeptical mainstream, but I don't see why being a hawk [Price's heresy] should make one so. There are a few political positions where one side is almost entirely religiously driven (say, gay marriage). On those, the atheists can be expected to line up on one side. There's no reason, however, to expect "atheist = liberal" on every issue.

------

[Harris] may be wrong on meditation and psi, but as far as I can tell he's a sincere rationalist. We need people like him speaking out for rationalism and breaking the taboo against criticizing religion. The proper response to these blind spots is refutation on those particular points, not ostricization.
Let's remember something here people: even intelligent, rational people can have false beliefs. Michael Shermer used to doubt the reality of global warming. Richard Carrier used to doubt the Big Bang theory. Let's not be so quick to excommunicate.

4 comments:

NonProphet said...

I couldn't agree more. There is nothing wrong with questioning a person's argument, but to write off everything they say because you don't agree with one of their points seems a little frivolous. I read Loftus' post, and think he makes that point nicely.

Furthermore, I've read Harris' book, and don't remember coming away from it feeling like I'd been ripped off because he discusses mysticism or the possibility of psi. At no point (at least in my memory) did he suggest that the exploration of the phenomena he discusses should be anything other than empirical/scientific. I really don't see what is wrong with that. Sure, we could argue about what areas of endeavour should have higher priority for funding, but that is, I think, an independent issue to HOW the endeavour should be undertaken.

Global Tepid said...

http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/32-Global_Warming_Bombshell.htm

Almost all those predictions are based on the study that is properly called into question by this document. I've looked into it, he's right. I think you'd find Prof. Muller interesting. Look at his entire web site. Incidently, the sun-spot atctivity has lately been anomously up.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdfsun_output_030320.html

Also look up data on recent solar flare activity, and compare it to the predict quiescent periods. You'll see that the sun is behaving unusualy.

global tepid said...

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund
/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf

John W. Loftus said...

I just noticed this post of yours. Thanks Chris.

I've taken some flack for my position but I am still a freethinker first and an atheist second. I promote freethinking first and atheism second.