(Part 2) Top products from r/skeptic

Please don't cheapen that word "consensus" with frivolous usage. The origins of religion is a highly contentious topic, and those who study it are absolutely not in full agreement with each other. You are trying to prop up your arguments with the authority of science while denigrating my intelligence. You don't convince people by arguing that way; you only satisfy your urge to crush an opponent.

Here's where we agree, and where you think we disagree:

1. Religion is a natural phenomenon.
   
2. Religion has been a part of human behaviour for tens of thousands of years.
   
   There. Half your post wasn't necessary, Mr./Ms. Read-More-Carefully.
   
   Where we disagree:
   You think religion... "exists because people believe the immaterial intentional entities (minds without bodies, gods.)" In a related concept, you indicate that we naturally ascribe agency to the natural world.
   
   Just so this is abundantly clear: I was arguing that gods are not required for religion. You misread Buddhism is but one example. "Most" Buddhists isn't "all" Buddhists, and "involves" is a far cry from "being the central element of the religion that defines its existence." Many totemic religions from tribal societies also lack gods. You end up having to redefine "gods" to "any supernatural agent" just to get this idea to work.
   
   But let's focus on the idea that it's natural for us to impose agency to things in the natural world, and this leading to the formation of religion. This also is not done in every religion. When it is done, it isn't relevant to every aspect of the religion in question. Even among Christianity, a great deal of worship is devoted to the saints, who were entirely human. Ditto with ancestor worship in Taoism.
   
   We have also seen the rise of new religions, and we know for a fact this idea of ascribing agency to the natural world was not involved in the creation of many of them: Scientology, or the various cults that are centred around extra terrestrials, or people from the future, or not eating (seriously!)
   
   Finally, it doesn't explain why we have the ability to feel transcendence; that feeling we get when our individuality melts away and we "give ourselves" to something greater. Where does that come from? How does that evolve?
   
   But for the sake of completeness, you would likely need to hear an alternative, so here is where I'm coming from. I ascribe to Emile Durkheim's theory of religion. He's a classic sociologist, and formally founded the field of sociology itself.
   
   Just to provide the brief gist:
   
   His definition of religion: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
   
   The faithful believe in a force that is outside of themselves, and greater than themselves that enters into them usually during moments of collective ritual, giving them the feeling of transcendence. All religions have this force. It is often called a "god," though other terms are used (mana, ch'i, etc.) This force is the "energy," if you will, of the society of the faithful. In other words, god and society... are one and the same. Society is exterior to the individual, and greater than him. If you denigrate this symbol of their society, you are denigrating the society itself, and they will react accordingly. The morals preached by the religion are the morals that the society unifies under. They hold rituals to reinforce this collective bond, and that is really its purpose. Some things are made sacred (objects, values, people), and the community collects around those things, which become a sort of emblem. Rationality will serve the purpose of the community's religion. And, as I initially stated in my first post, the religion of the day will change as the needs of the society changes. Sometimes the religion itself alters, and other times it is simply abandoned for another one.
   
   We see religious behaviour in cruder moments all the time. The feeling of transcendence occurs among soldiers that fight and die together. They often describe their individuality melting away and becoming "whole" with their brothers in arms. They create a small system of morals and beliefs that are specific just to them. And they even sometimes have rituals.
   
   The same religious behaviour can be seen in revolutionaries who rationalize their oppressors as the ultimate evil. Or in nationalistic patriotism (why does a flag make someone cry? Why does it matter what the founding fathers thought?). Or college fraternities with their initiations and pledges. Or the obsession with all things natural and organic, and neo druidism, and Gwenyth Paltrow getting people to stick odd things up their vaginas. Or Trump supports who see Donald Trump as their saviour from the evils that plague them.
   
   We have evolved the innate ability to unite under an emblem and operate as a cohesive whole. That is religion, and no other animal seems to have it. It's the evolutionary trick that made us the dominant species on earth. It's utter shit for finding the truth of things, but it massively serves the purpose of our survival.
   
   Now, if you want religion to just go away so we can have a purely secular society based on reason, then what you want to believe is that religion is just some kind of fluke originally made to explain the world (and it clearly does a poor job of that). I admire that cause, but I doubt it's viability, and I certainly doubt the premise that's justifying it. Or perhaps I'm just making assumptions about your point of view. A purely rational society is one that I think a lot of skeptics dream of, and you are in this subreddit.
   
   Further reading, if you're interested: Emile Durkheim's "The Elementary Forms of Religious LIfe." Also, Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion."

The most recent XKCD is actually a fantastic illustration of what is probably going on (assuming everything is on the up and up and these studies were well run). The general value for statistical significance (p less than or equal to .05) is completely and utterly arbitrary. (refer to capnrefsmmat post below). It's just a general convention that people in the medical and scientific communities are willing to accept that level of potential error. Therefore, if enough double-blind, placebo controlled trials of homeopathy are conducted, it is a certainty that some will show statistically significant results. That's why one study does not prove or disprove a treatment, a theory, whatever. Instead, you look at the evidence as a whole. And there is a MOUNTAIN of negative trials for homeopathic remedies. I apologize I don't have time to go looking for you, but you should be able to find some to throw back at the individual, plus I imagine some of our friends here in r/skeptic will have a few they can share as well. Good luck.

edit: If you can get hold of a copy, Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst's Trick or Treatment would be a great place to start formulating a rebuttal.

>I just want to point out that the OP here is being hypocritical here.

You say this a lot, but it hasn't actually been true so far.

>She claiming to be a skeptic

I am male.

>but has been citing feminist advocacy research and dogma that's been produced in Women's Studies, which is of a more quasi-religion than it is academia,

Peer-reviewed quasi-religion, roger roger. But Men's Studies is totally legit, right?

>while cherry picking from /r/mensrights in order to attempt to discredit the mens movement.

'Cherry picking' from the most upvoted topics on the front-page of the sub-reddit. It's not like it's any better right now either--pick a time and I'll highlight the numerous problems with intellectual honesty on /r/MensRights issues of the day.

>Here is a good source on the dogma and routine academic fraud and indoctrination that takes place in feminist academic. http://www.amazon.com/Professing-Feminism-Education-Indoctrination-Studies/dp/0739104551

Pop-books don't belong in a skeptical debate, generally, but this one has generated some academic discussion (e.g. here). This type of work to hold a movement to task is very important, and many fields in the social-sciences sphere have proponents that commit similar 'offenses' with matching similar efforts to keep the community in line. You're free to think that feminism as a whole is made up of people that are just dogmatic, but that isn't what this book claims, and that isn't consistent with the reality either. Feminism is a diverse field of academic discourse, there's no conspiracy here.

>And here is a good source on data that is commonly used in the mens movement /r/mensrightslinks

There's nothing wrong with more data, but be careful about drawing conclusions when your sources are all filtered through one point. There's a reason that /r/mensrightslinks is so slow moving, and it isn't because supporters are slow to identify research that is consistent with their view.

>and here is a related academic journal http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/issue/view/7

This is a new journal that has yet to establish any reputation one way or the other, but their editorial team suggests that this publication could be a key contributor to this debate in the coming years. Open journals like this often have more issues fending off poorly-thought-out research (as a consequence of their desire to publish more ideas and let the community hash out their rigeur), and so far they don't seem to offer any quantitative research, but the qualitative studies that I reviewed briefly appear to be of generally high quality.

I don't know of videos, but the book Maybe Yes, Maybe No is an introduction to skepticism. It may be a bit too juvenile depending on how mature your daughter is.

How Do You Know It's True might be a better option if you think she's too mature for the first suggestion.

Interesting.

He mentions Jonathan Haight in the talk. I highly recommend his book The Righteous Mind. It goes into great detail about how and why people believe and defend their beliefs as they do. It is a fantastic book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307377903?pc_redir=1397219270&robot_redir=1

Wow, I just started watching and one of his intro slides is, "There's lots of fiction about this stuff in movies, so there must be something to it." I can't imagine that he's going to use that as some sort of actual point, but it's kinda sad to see it even brought up...

Edti: Hrm... he's gone on to special pleading and a number of other fallacies.

I feel like a lot of this was covered in Flim Flam and elsewhere. I don't know enough about the specific stuff he's presenting as evidence to comment. It's interesting, but I'd have to look a lot further to be convinced.

The section on magnets starts at 3:55, but there's a great explanation of the difficulty of "why" questions at the beginning.

P.S. I'd like to take this opportunity to recommend Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, if anyone hasn't read it yet. There's also a larger hardcover compilation containing that work and a few others called Classic Feynman (this is the edition I have). He was an amazing person, and there are all sorts of spectacular stories about his time on the Manhattan Project, about investigating the Challenger disaster, and about selecting textbooks out for the California school curriculum (this section may make you rage).

Yeah there are many. Daphne Patai is a good whistle blower on the pseudo science that is women's studies.

Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies

http://www.amazon.com/Professing-Feminism-Education-Indoctrination-Studies/dp/0739104551


Feminism's research and claims on DV have been thoroughly debunked by a number of well respected social scientists in the scientific research community. Here is quick paper on the methods feminist social scientists have been using to bias DV data for decades now.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

Feminism is a pseudo science that relies on advocacy research.


EDIT - And your NOW links aren't citing their sources, just claiming that they exist and fearmongering to manipulate followers into lobbying politicians to oppose bills that would improve fathers rights.

I found this book helpful http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Against-Logic-Politicians-Journalists/dp/0071446435

It isn't terribly in-depth, but it helped my understand the mindset of thinking logically and seeing where fallacies lay, plus the author has a very good sense of humor which makes the book nice to read.

Sure ... try "Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions"

It also has a great introduction by his friend Isaac Asimov.

Here is a link to it in Amazon, so don't take my word on this, check out the 84 reviews there. http://www.amazon.com/Flim-Flam-Psychics-Unicorns-Other-Delusions/dp/0879751983/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317469950&sr=8-1

It looks really great. I was also considering

http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0716733870

because it looks friendly. How easy is your book to read?

Crimes against Logic, by Jamie Whyte. It's really clever and witty.

Edit : you can find a lot of his Times articles here. Be sure to check The five great fallacies and how to spot them.

This book seems like it would address a lot of the shit you're pontificating about. It's quite new and I must admit I haven't read it but I put it on my list after reading positive reviews.

Disappointed in this comment section.

Research shows it's worth arguing with science deniers. But tactics matter, and most people are bad at arguing. If you're interested in helping him understand climate change, Citizens' Climate Lobby has excellent communications skills training to help you have more productive conversations with people like him. I have had a lot of success with it.

You can also recommend to him the SGU podcast, or buy him the book.

You can also point out to him that if he's afraid of "MSM," he's probably getting more fake news.

Pick up the Richard Dawkins book "The Greatest show on Earth" and read it asap! It will explain it all and help you when you have to deal with such people.

I wrote an essay myself on homeopathy last year for a class. Two helpful books were Trick or Treatment and Snake Oil Science. If you are interested in reading my essay I'll gladly send you a copy (my works cited may give you further research avenues.)

> Mathematical literacy is more important than the typical person things.

The way you phrased that reminded me of Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos, which is a great book on these types of things.

The two best books for getting a basic understanding of the writing and transmission process of the Bible are:

Richard Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? for the Hebrew Scriptures

Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament? for the Christian Scriptures

Skeptic's Guide to the Universe is a fantastic new book to start with.

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760525/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1575002564&sr=8-1

Book: "Why People Believe Weird Things"

http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0716733870

Another: "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"

http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/1453690298/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299173709&sr=1-1

Happy reading!

His book (Link to Amazon) by the same name is really good.

http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353

It's been investigated in depth for the OT. It's a very interesting tale.

Perhaps the book "Paranormality" would be a good book for you to read.

http://www.amazon.com/Paranormality-Why-What-Isnt-There/dp/0230752985

Messrs Ernst and Singh are a good bet:

Trick or Treatment

I can't remember if these were both in his book, but you should absolutely read: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

This site has responses to everything in the movie. Also, the NOVA special Judgement Day: intelligent design on trial is another great resource for why ID is not a scientific proposition. There are also some books out (Why evolution is true and The greatest show on earth) but it is very likely that he would not read them.

>He refused to listen to any facts from me and actually hung up on me.

There is the problem, there is no amount of discussion or evidence that will get through to him until he starts acting like an adult.

I've heard great things about John Allen Paulos' Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences but haven't read it myself yet so I don't know how much it covers about probability.

I'll add David Fitzgerald's "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that Prove Jesus Never Existed At All" to the pile.

The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1250008808?pc_redir=1398041151&robot_redir=1

Occam's Nightmare by S Peter Davis
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1304030180?pc_redir=1397838233&robot_redir=1

Non-wonky Link.

[I'll just leave this here] (https://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/067006758X?pc_redir=T1)

I really sympathize. I used to believe all that crap, too. For me, it started changing after I took a Biology class. Learning the reasons behind the scientific method really opened my eyes.

When your child gets older, I recommend this book by Dan Barker. It specifically addresses ghosts and skepticism in kid-friendly way.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0879756071/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/180-6193934-8727200

It's funny to me that you think calling something a cabal and desperately mocking your opponets argument trying to make the worst form of it so that you can feel emotionally gratified in your bias is more important to you than making the best form of the argument to see if you're right. That postmodernism is becoming increasingly popular at universities and that by its own claims is anti modernism. I mean would it not be easy enough to justify that with the sokal affair? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

https://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078

Or if you are really desperate you could ignore evidence that compelling about postmodernists and still be left with how campus policy has been changed after much lobbying by feminist groups.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-johnson-taylor-campus-sexual-assault-20170303-story.html

What about polling done by Bucknell Institute for Public Policy that shows democrats are the lowest for believing in the right to cross examine their accusiors? Now I too might ask is that the result of feminist teaching in academia maybe not but is it not strange that so many public womens and genders studies professors support such changes or are against such basic rights?

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/27/poll-americans-still-believe-innocent-proven-guilty-even-college-students/

Is that argument actually so ridiclious? Or are you trying to save your bias by only being willing to pretend its as if its some secret cabal?

Snake Oil Science Try this book. The author is a biostatistician and explains the problems with meta analysis.

get him to read The Panic Virus?

http://sethmnookin.com/the-panic-virus/
http://www.amazon.com/Panic-Virus-Story-Medicine-Science/dp/1439158649/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

You should read the chapter in Why People Believe Weird Things where Michael Shermer described how he was abducted by aliens. Then read the rest of the chapter and you will get your answer.

> Got any examples there, bud?

There's an entire book on the subject called Fashionable Nonsense filled with examples of humanities scholars bastardizing science to create an anti-colonial narrative. In the cited works by popular academics you'll learn that math and physics aren't simply ways of describing the world around us and making predictions, but secret vehicles for racism, sexism, and colonial oppression. If decrying the disciplines that enabled human spaceflight and doubled the average lifespan is not anti-intellectual, I don't know what is.

> You realize the scientific method has limits right? Like by definition. Science is a process of constant revision.

So what's your point? Observing facts, coming up with a hypothesis, falsifying it, and producing a theory to explain the relationships between the facts you're documented and tested, then correcting it when new facts are discovered is a pretty damn good way of learning about the world and the way all humans have done it since we gained sapience.

When humanities scholars say that "indigenous cultures had the scientific method forced upon them by colonists," they're not decrying colonialism as much as they're insulting indigenous cultures by refusing to acknowledge that they too understood how science works and conducted some form of scientific studies.

Check out Rob Brotherton's (2015) Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories. He specifically focuses on the psychological components.




Another book worth checking out is Michael Shermer's (2012) The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies--How we Construct Beliefs and Reinforce them as Truths. While the book touches on a wide number of topics beyond conspiracy theories, it addresses much of the psychology underlying the belief in conspiracy theories.