I don't know if this is a problem with many skeptics but I know of three (including myself) who have been accused by loved ones of being associated with a cult. It seems that this cult has slowly been integrated into my life with such a subtlety that I had barely noticed my transformation from a normal, functioning human being to a crazy zealot. So it got me to thinking, have I been brainwashed without my knowledge? Has a fundamental change come over me? Do I treat people somehow badly or differently if I deem them unskeptical? Maybe the JREF is a cult with Randi as our revered leader and I need some major deprogramming. So I thought I'd look it up and see what similarities the skeptical movement and the JREF in particular have to cults. So here is a checklist I found on the interwebs which describes the characteristics of cults. I will examine each one and determine if similarities exist. This way I can assure my family and friends that there is no need to hire people to jump out a black van and throw a bag over my head.
1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.I wouldn't even say there is a "leader" of the skeptical movement. Sure James Randi founded a non-profit educational foundation that bears his name and he his one of the best out there but that by no means makes him a leader. And even if there are people who view him as such, there certainly is no unquestioning commitment. Not too long ago James Randi wrote an article about global warming that was criticized by skeptics everywhere. Skeptics will call other skeptics out, even if they have some celebrity status, just take a look at the JREF forum to see skeptics bicker amongst themselves all the time.
2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
On the contrary. Questioning and doubt are encouraged. The entire point of skepticism is to question and doubt claims that seem outrageous.
3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
Aside from some folks losing sleep over self induced late night drinking sessions at TAM, I can say with absolute certainty that this is most definitely something not being put into practice.
4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
Once again, the lack of "leadership" really negates this entire point and skeptics are free to lead their personal lives however they wish. Some even date or marry (gasp!) non-skeptics
5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
Well I guess we are on a mission to help people. We try to educate and teach folks critical thinking skills so they aren't taken advantage of due to their credulity by ummmm....cults for example.
Skeptics don't claim any elitism or exalted status. I don't even get any tax breaks dammit!
6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
I suppose I'll agree with this one marginally. Skeptics seem to be the minority (although the tide may appearing to be turning) and when we voice our oppositions to such things as creationism, homeopathy and anti-vaxxers, it definitely causes conflict with the much larger group of believers. Although I disagree with it as well since oppositions are voiced not in order to create conflict and shove our views down throats but to get law makers to see reason and affect change for the greater good. For example when governments were using dowsing rods to detect bombs, skeptics spoke up as to the ineffectual nature of these modern day magic wands and many lives were saved.
7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
Again, since there is no "leader" we can rule this out but if you still insist on calling Randi a leader type then this also rings untrue. Not only is Randi accountable to fellow skeptics but if he were to break the law, he would be arrested and dealt with like anybody else.
8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
Not once have I heard of any skeptic doing any of these things to "justify the means". We are encouraged to do such awful things as write letters to our elected officials and credulous publications. I know, reprehensible.
9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Perhaps other skeptics are using persuasion on me. Although I wouldn't know about it since it is so subtle. Not feeling any shame or guilt about being a skeptic though.
10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
No fellow skeptic has ever dictated who my friends should be or told me to cut ties with family members. I suppose I do have some new personal goals relating to skepticism but since I've never had any major goals before, I say they haven't been radically altered. I can't speak for other skeptics who have perhaps gotten involved with a local skeptic group and found themselves making time in their lives for skeptical related goals and activities but is that any different from anyone else who has found a new interest and made time for it?
11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
If by that they mean trying to impart critical thinking skills onto the masses, then guilty.
12. The group is preoccupied with making money.
1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.I wouldn't even say there is a "leader" of the skeptical movement. Sure James Randi founded a non-profit educational foundation that bears his name and he his one of the best out there but that by no means makes him a leader. And even if there are people who view him as such, there certainly is no unquestioning commitment. Not too long ago James Randi wrote an article about global warming that was criticized by skeptics everywhere. Skeptics will call other skeptics out, even if they have some celebrity status, just take a look at the JREF forum to see skeptics bicker amongst themselves all the time.
2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
On the contrary. Questioning and doubt are encouraged. The entire point of skepticism is to question and doubt claims that seem outrageous.
3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
Aside from some folks losing sleep over self induced late night drinking sessions at TAM, I can say with absolute certainty that this is most definitely something not being put into practice.
4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
Once again, the lack of "leadership" really negates this entire point and skeptics are free to lead their personal lives however they wish. Some even date or marry (gasp!) non-skeptics
5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
Well I guess we are on a mission to help people. We try to educate and teach folks critical thinking skills so they aren't taken advantage of due to their credulity by ummmm....cults for example.
Skeptics don't claim any elitism or exalted status. I don't even get any tax breaks dammit!
6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
I suppose I'll agree with this one marginally. Skeptics seem to be the minority (although the tide may appearing to be turning) and when we voice our oppositions to such things as creationism, homeopathy and anti-vaxxers, it definitely causes conflict with the much larger group of believers. Although I disagree with it as well since oppositions are voiced not in order to create conflict and shove our views down throats but to get law makers to see reason and affect change for the greater good. For example when governments were using dowsing rods to detect bombs, skeptics spoke up as to the ineffectual nature of these modern day magic wands and many lives were saved.
7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
Again, since there is no "leader" we can rule this out but if you still insist on calling Randi a leader type then this also rings untrue. Not only is Randi accountable to fellow skeptics but if he were to break the law, he would be arrested and dealt with like anybody else.
8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
Not once have I heard of any skeptic doing any of these things to "justify the means". We are encouraged to do such awful things as write letters to our elected officials and credulous publications. I know, reprehensible.
9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Perhaps other skeptics are using persuasion on me. Although I wouldn't know about it since it is so subtle. Not feeling any shame or guilt about being a skeptic though.
10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
No fellow skeptic has ever dictated who my friends should be or told me to cut ties with family members. I suppose I do have some new personal goals relating to skepticism but since I've never had any major goals before, I say they haven't been radically altered. I can't speak for other skeptics who have perhaps gotten involved with a local skeptic group and found themselves making time in their lives for skeptical related goals and activities but is that any different from anyone else who has found a new interest and made time for it?
11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
If by that they mean trying to impart critical thinking skills onto the masses, then guilty.
12. The group is preoccupied with making money.
Trust me, there is NO money to be made in skepticism. Sadly.
13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Every skeptic can spend as much or as little time as they wish on skeptical related group activities. But the pub nights do seem to be popular.
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
Not even true a little bit.
15. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
You can stop being a skeptic anytime you want and although you may be chided and asked what sort of evidence caused your strange departure, no one is going to flog you with a wet noodle.
So after that exhaustive list I think I can safely say that I am not a member of a zany cult. At any rate, skepticism isn't a "belief" or a "doctrine", it's merely a process. A way of looking at the world through a bullshit filter. Skeptics simply look at wild claims, analyze the evidence for these claims and then accept or reject said claim based on the evidence available at that time. Unlike members of a religion or cult, skeptics will change their worldview if new, reliable evidence is presented. I like to hang out with other skeptics because they share my views, not because they are fellow members of the cult of reason.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a gathering to attend. I can't tell you the details or I would have to kill you but I hear that there may be some virgin chickens and sacrificing involved.
So after that exhaustive list I think I can safely say that I am not a member of a zany cult. At any rate, skepticism isn't a "belief" or a "doctrine", it's merely a process. A way of looking at the world through a bullshit filter. Skeptics simply look at wild claims, analyze the evidence for these claims and then accept or reject said claim based on the evidence available at that time. Unlike members of a religion or cult, skeptics will change their worldview if new, reliable evidence is presented. I like to hang out with other skeptics because they share my views, not because they are fellow members of the cult of reason.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a gathering to attend. I can't tell you the details or I would have to kill you but I hear that there may be some virgin chickens and sacrificing involved.
Comments
Yet I have yet to see any of the active posters "recant" even an inch on any subject! So, no, I don't see anybody changing their opinions just because new facts have been brought forward. In that respect, then, it looks like a church. Maybe a bit cult like.
When Mr. Plait spoke his talk about "don't be a dick", every individual in the room agreed with him until he left the room. A friend of mine who was at that lecture noted that as soon as Phil left the room, they all pretty much said "whatever" and went back to their normal "people who believe in Astrology are morons" attitude. Is Phil Plait a charismatic leader? Hmmm. Maybe...but probably not.
I decided to leave Mr. Randi's forum to the white coated priests.
(well, not really, I lurk there a lot still, but never post.)
The "Sceptic movement" is NOT a cult, of course. A cult is designed to enable a charismatic leader get sex, money and power. Until I see resources moving up the "power structure", it is not a cult. Heck, its not even a "gang", let alone a power structure. But it IS a breath of fresh air.
Keep up the good fight.
It's ridiculous for people to call themselves "free thinkers" or "evidence based thinkers" and then attack people who question the "scientific consensus." There's something wrong here. Sorry, I don't need a Phd. in a field to question it; I'm a free anent and I'll make up my own mind.
Science is not sacrosanct and I'll evaluate things for myself just as I do vis-a-vis history, political science or anything else that crosses my path.