In response to "The laughable faux-superiority of Movement Skepticism"

http://eiridescent.com/tag/kyriarchy/

I would like to respond to the points made in this article, as someone who identifies as a Skeptic and Atheist. I will do this in the form of a kind of “open letter” to the author.

“As a Skeptic and Atheist, I understand and sympathise with your position, as made clear in your article . I am not surprised that such an article has appeared, although it will probably come as no surprise to you that I have some issues with it.

I was initially quite taken aback and offended by your article, however, I have now considered that it is more important to try and understand your perpective. I do not expect you to take any further interest in my opinions, but if you could take a few minute to read my response it would be much appreciated.

I think the biggest misrepresentation that you have made is that all atheists and skeptics subscribe to the same ideas surrounding the value of logic. I do not accept your points 1-7 at the start of your article. I agree up to point 5, but for 6, well to be realistic we cannot expect, nor desire, to drive out all “magical thinking” overnight. That is massively impractical and we are not so dogmatic as to “not permit” it under any circumstances. If that were the case skeptics would be out murdering religious and spiritual people right now.

It would be more accuarate to say that skeptics advocate raising awareness of the dangers and pitfalls of magical thinking, and encourage its decline (not disappearance – we all in some small way subsribe to superstition in our everyday lives, and there may be some evidence that this can be subconsciously beneficial). Such huge changes as the ideal of reducing the influence of certain religious institutions must, if they ever become reality, be achieved slowly and carefully with the support systems in place to help people that want to change.

Point 7 is too dogmatic for me, and I would think many skeptics. It would only ever apply to the analysis of ideas, and not extend to our attitudes towards others. The notion that rationality is the be-all-and-end-all of human decision making is as abhorrent to me as it obviously is to you. Other vital factors should influence us – liberalism, empathy and philosophy all have their important roles.

I think it is a bit unfair of you to charicature all atheists as uncaring automatons or slaves to logic. We are people too. We do not all agree with each other – this myth is highly damaging. There is currently a sizeable schism within the atheist/skpetic/freethought community, and people like me find the charicature you created to be as reprehensible as you do. Chief amongst this scourge are MRAs, or MRAtheists as you mention. I agree with you about them. Their vile, selfish, bigoted and abusive behaviour has over the years created a deep division separating them from the more tolerant and liberal among us, who would like to be inclusive and show empathy, compassion and respect for all people. I am also actually quite critical of these “militant” atheists who basically “troll” forums and hashtags looking for fights with theists and believers. Such behaviour does not really help anyone. Instead of this, I consider the best approach to be to combat only hateful religious extremism and also everyday disriminations such as sexism and racism, that need to be wiped out.

Please try to understand that the atheist community is open to many people, all of whom are necessarily unvetted as “non-believers”. Anyone can become an atheist after disavowing their god, and that action alone does not remove any other dangerous prejudices that they may hold (probably from the religion!) But please also understand that fighting against such ingrained discriminatory attitudes is tough. It is a bit more complicated than “cleaning up your own backyard” as you put it, and takes time and support systems. We are working on it! I could have construed your words here as quite intolerant actually, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

As a white, male atheist I like to support women's rights and LGBTQ rights whenever I can and think that Humanism is a good platform for doing so. There are many organisations whose members are mainly composed of atheists, who actively oppose the MRAtheists both you and I find so offensive. One such organisation is the Centre For Inquiry (CFI). I ask that you please look at all the good work they do on behalf of minorities and women in secularism before you write such articles. Blog spaces such as the FreeThought Blogs (FTB) and Skepchicks are occupied by very liberal and tolerant women (and men) from diverse backgrounds who constantly fight against MRAtheists, and I might add, receive much abuse for it.

I also take issue with the assertion that skeptics view themselves as superior to others. I do not. Skepticism by its very nature lends a large dose of humility – in the light of changing evidence, sketpics are quick to admit they were wrong and change opinion along with the scientific consensus. Skepticism is just a good way of answering such questions as "Is God likely to exist?", "are there really alien UFOs" or "does homeopathy really work?"

Nor do we believe ourselves to be more intelligent than non-skeptics. Most of us will accept that we are priveleged. I for one wish to work with other activists in empowering minorities and fighting discrimination. Whilst we believe it is best for people to learn and know all the ways in which religion can damage the world, we leave it entirely up to them to decide if they want to keep their religion. I believe that knowledge is to be offered when asked for, but I do not approve of it being forced on people. If someone has all the information they need to make a rational decision and chooses to stick with their religion, there is nothing we can, or should, do to stop them.

You are also correct to offer some criticism of Richard Dawkins. Although I hold his works Such as The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene in the highest regard; outside his books, in activism and comment, he too often comes across as uncaring, and can be divisive, driving away those who would otherwise be allies.

Near the end of your piece you appear to accept that secularism, or separation of church and state, is preferable to state-sponsored religious dogma. In that case, please work with us in trying to promote secularism all across the world – this is one of atheism's main causes.

In summary I thank you for writing your article, and think it is important to highlight the struggle currently going on in atheist/skeptic circles. Du to my own status I can't really offer any comments on the plight of trans- people but I do recognise that you are unfairly ostracised even by some feminists. But please bear in mind that not all of us are as dogmatic as you may think, and openly and actively resist the damaging actions of those MRAtheists you mentioned.

I hope you can appreciate that this response has been made with a charitable interpretation of your words in mind, and I hope you accept these comments in the constructive nature with which they were intended.”