Skeptics in the Pub

This post seems to attracting some attention, so I’ve enhanced it with a few outbound links and will update here and there as I see fit.

This evening I managed to get to a Skeptics in the Pub presentation bravely given by a Young Earth Creationist. The man was not an expert in any area of science, and admitted that. Nonetheless, he made many valid points mainly regarding the healthy skepticism we should all maintain regarding all scientific theories, and I found his talk interesting.

The main problem with his position was that he failed to apply Occam’s Razor: postulating a being as complex and unlikely as God requires far more assumptions of the unlikely than does accepting evolution as a working theory. He also didn’t explain why he chose the Christian account of creation above that of any other religion. These failings, along with his limited scientific knowledge, are what made him made him ultimately unconvincing.

I don’t want to write much about him though. What really concerned me (as has repeatedly been the case, sadly) was the conduct of my “fellow” atheists at this event.

I expected this to happen. Many who spoke at the event were rude, abrasive, jeering and unpleasant. It was possible to detect the likelihood of this from their countenances alone before they even spoke, but when they opened their mouths it was unfortunately confirmed. Even the crowd here felt that some individual members occasionally overstepped the mark, and they booed and hissed at their rudeness. But other times they laughed along and encouraged vulgarity.

It is possible to make points without being arrogant, conceited and rude, as many of the people were. All points should have been made politely, especially considering how easy the man was to refute, and how outnumbered he was. Some did make points respectably, but they were in a minority.

What also strikes me about these meetings is how many out-right weirdos they tend to attract. There are clearly some “regulars”: uncouth middle-aged men, devoid of any style or social finesse, and yet apparently with very high opinions of themselves. These are always the ones who want the mic, and who proceed to ask long meandering questions that are just plain weird – never succinct or well considered, and never courteously or humbly posed.

If it wasn’t these oddball types it was other rugby-shirted arrogant types again asking idiotic questions which were really more statements, intended merely to boost their own egos, to try to get a laugh (and sometimes, simply to insult the speaker). There were these, and cackling, juvenile types shrieking with laughter at inopportune moments.

These are the types of supposed rationalist who gather at such meetings – not all are like this, but a worrying number are. (I use the term “rationalist” here not in its strict philosophical sense but informally as one who appreciates both reason and the use of empirical evidence.) They are the kind of atheist who must embarrass the likes of Pat Condell and Richard Dawkins too. Freaks, oddballs, social inadequates who flock to the meetings in just the same way as religious people club together, and who are in a sense just as bigoted and dismissive (one suspects some are more cynics than skeptics and would never believe in anything). Such people bring shame to the name of rationalism. One of them even said through the mic, and not ironically enough, that being an atheist he would teach any lie as if it were truth for financial reward. We don’t need these types.

I believe that, because of the crowd, this man even managed to come out on top tonight, overall – and that should not have been the case.

What is the answer? A greater amount of decent, intelligent people need to speak up in the name of rationalism, and turn up at events like this, so that these types are firmly outnumbered and put on the fringes where they belong. And we all need to insist on decent and dignified behaviour from rational people. It is of the utmost importance that we outshine the religious people not only intellectually but also morally, so that they have no high ground, so that we can demonstrate that religion and morality are entirely separate, but also because it is simply the right way to behave.

I have written before that there are two kinds of atheist. Atheism is not nihilism, though many religious people like to portray it as such. It need not be cynicism either. It should be life-affirming and positive, and atheists should be setting the moral example. For a long time Sam Harris did not even identify himself as an atheist, because of the negative connotations of the word. I entirely understand his concerns, and when he speaks of a “cranky subculture”, that’s the subculture I’m writing of here. But, actually, being atheist means you do believe in reason and evidence. Humanism (even better) means you believe in decent conduct towards your fellow human beings too.

It was a pitiful sight this evening, to be sure, but not only at the front of the crowd, as should have been the case. Silent majority of rational people who are not weird and do not have some strange ulterior motive: we currently have enemies even within our own side. If you care about your own future and about the future of free speech and civilisation, please stand up and be counted – you were never more needed than now.