Celebrating Reason at the Reason Rally

I’m fully aware that this event, this rally, is very much centered on the secular point of view, and I am firmly of the opinion that the greater part of the confusion that presently exists concerning rationality and reason is directly due to the persistent influence of religion. However, I’d like to deal with the greater general problem that is now with us.

What we know of and define as the Enlightenment is generally said to have taken root in the period 1700–1800 CE, and the essential change it brought about was the application of rationality to all questions and problems. Thinkers and writers became free to pursue the truth in—almost—whatever form they wished, without threats of sanction for violating established ideas, as had previously been the case. Sadly, the Enlightenment now appears to be over and done with. The joy and excitement that so stirred the minds of those who were courageous enough to reject the superstition, false authority, dogma, and the wishful thinking that had once frozen their progress, have now ground to a halt, and we have yet to recover from the previous administration’s science-bashing philosophy. Centers of learning have kowtowed to popular delusions and taken on bizarre notions in order to survive financially. They embrace ideas, notions, and theories that do not—and cannot—survive proper examination, and they offer courses in poor thinking. Such acceptance also implies endorsement. 

Skepticism means having good reasons for holding any belief.

Many people no longer think for themselves, but surrender that process to the media and to the opportunists who happily fleece them. “The real world” and “truth” are now only expressions, not facts, and religion rules minds as it did when witch-burning and angels seemed to be viable and believable notions. Whole sectors of society, including law enforcement authorities, social services, science teachers, medical practitioners, and politicians, actually believe—despite overwhelming contrary evidence—that our Earth is only 6,000 years old, that a malevolent deity brings floods, pestilence, and suffering to those he/she/it chooses to hate, but rewards others for killing themselves as human bombs. They believe that homeopathy—which consists of zero doses of medicine that isn’t there, at all—is flourishing because it works, and not only because it’s an attractive crackpot notion. This sort of belief has invaded the highest levels of the media, government and the teaching professions. How did such a widespread desertion of common sense and fact come about? 

Because it’s so much easier to have such a simplistic view. Little or no thinking is required. Those who surround you will tolerate you if you simply don’t speak up, and all you have to do is allow the yahoos to take over, while staying out of their way. 

If this behavior were restricted to uneducated herbalists, perpetual-motion inventors, and crackpot fortune-tellers, perhaps we could ignore it, but the end of the Enlightenment invades every chink in our armor, and it threatens science itself. 

The woo-woos are active anti-science elements, but they’re not nearly as dangerous to our security as those centers of higher learning which try to justify the awarding of science degrees in subjects that are anti-science in every respect. The truth of what they teach is not based on fact, but on emotion, tradition—and convenience. It has become “politically incorrect” to question things like this. The bureaucrats who impose these limitations and constraints have zero interest in how data is gathered and processed. They don’t do randomized testing procedures or even run pilot tests, because, like old-fashioned clinicians, they just know they’re right. 

Enormous harm has been done to science by emphasizing quantity of data over quality, and—at the extremes—fraud and fakery over honesty and hard, consistent, intellectual work. However, science has self-correcting mechanisms built in, so that mistakes, and the occasional bit of fakery, are eventually automatically eliminated. Left to itself, science has created and shaped much of the world in which we live, but constant vigilance can never be relaxed, or the woo-woos can and will move in permanently. 

Skeptics are folks who are cautious about drawing their conclusions but always willing to change their minds upon the presentation of new or better information.

Malignant science—a variety of which has been dubbed “pathological science,” results from carelessness, incompetence, over-emphasis on authority rather than expertise, plain stupidity, the tantalizing Nobel-prize-on-the-horizon syndrome and, often, just simple avarice. All but one of these are elements not unheard of in everyday life, and the layman can easily relate to them. 

Philosophically, I’m both an atheist and a skeptic, but just who and what are we skeptics? Skepticism means having good reasons for holding any belief. 

Skeptics are folks who are cautious about drawing their conclusions but always willing to change their minds upon the presentation of new or better information. Don’t equate us with cynics who, by current usage of that term, believe that people are basically bad or stupid, and that our world is an evil place. We skeptics believe—but always with good reason—that most people too-easily tend to accept supernatural, paranormal, or irrational explanations of quite ordinary events and claims that can be explained otherwise by careful investigation. We come from all walks of life and may have very differing views of the world, but we share a commitment to careful discussion, and to respectful examination of fads, claims, and assertions about supposedly supernatural events or processes. We recognize that an opinion often does not necessarily represent a fact, and we make our judgments and draw logical conclusions, though on occasion—for sufficient reason—we will withhold that judgment pending the arrival of more data. 

Adam and Eve, my parents told me, were the original two humans, plunked down in a convenient garden to start our species going. But I didn’t understand, and I still don’t, that they had only two children, both sons—and one of them killed the other—yet somehow they produced enough people to populate the Earth, without incest, which was a big no-no, and certainly impossible, given the facts of the story! Then some prophet or other made the Earth stop turning, an army blew horns until a big wall fell down, a guy named Moses made the Red Sea divide in two, and made frogs fall out of the sky … and so on. 

I needn’t go on. That’s only a small start on one religion. We haven’t even begun to marvel over flying horses in the Koran, Krishna stopping the Sun—as happened also in the Bible, the chap was named Joshua, I believe—and then there’s Harry Potter, of course. I think you’ll agree with me that Harry Potter and The Wizard of Oz are much more believable, and much, much, more fun. 

I keep hearing, from the religious, the parapsychologists, and the occultists, about this unwillingness they perceive, a reluctance by certain skeptics to “consider the evidence.” There may well be skeptics out there who match that description, but I don’t know of any. I’ve heard that the skeptics’ postulated refusal to believe, parallels—and even exceeds—the dedication of the most ardent reincarnation enthusiast, spoon-bending buff, or UFO devotee. I’ve also seen attempts to delineate the more or less non-rational foundations that underlie such extreme positions. Incidentally, I don’t believe in reincarnation, though I used to, in a former life … 

Science has self-correcting mechanisms built in, so that mistakes, and the occasional bit of fakery, are eventually automatically eliminated.

Critics of this meeting have chortled that we won’t be seeing Heaven, but I’ll take my chances. I understand that if we do what we believe is right and proper, sincerely believe in it, we get to see those gold-paved streets, though I can tell you, I think that would be a huge bore! Surely an understanding God would know that I did what I thought was right, and deserve to be rewarded, perhaps by end-to-end Bill Maher shows for eternity? Or maybe not … 

Skeptical thinking goes back in history to the ancient Greeks and Romans, and was validated when the scientific method fully emerged into general use in the 17th century. Many skeptics are scientists, since science emerges from and encourages the skeptical way of thinking. Determining the completeness and accuracy of information is an integral part of the scientific process. 

It’s certainly time that we all grew up. Instead of forging ahead into the 14th century, we should be embracing the 21st by writing finis to belief in the bigoted, capricious, cruel, deceitful, genocidal, homophobic, insecure, intolerant, irrational, jealous, malevolent, misogynistic, racist, sadistic, vindictive, and violent bully who demands constant praise, sacrifice, adulation, and ego-support, or the penalties—he promises us—can be very severe. I’ve found, in my observations, that religious people are constantly fearful, trembling and wondering if they’ve committed any infractions of the multitude of rules they have to follow. They are ruled by fear. That’s not my style, and it’s not yours! 

I’m so very grateful—and flattered—to have been invited today to join these beautiful people with whom I share these feelings. My partner of 25 years cannot be here beside me today because of some legal difficulties in which we are involved, but I will extend to you all, his personal thanks for this great honor. 

I’m flattered and honored to have been asked to appear here with this select group of real thinkers, at this Rally for Reason, on this particularly significant location in our nation’s capitol, to address all of you with my thoughts. Thank you.