concerning the following post attempt to the list:
From: "seneca4y2k" <seneca4y2k@...
Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:48 am
Subject: Question from a newbie seneca4y2k
Send Message Send Message
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Edit Membership Edit Membership
Hope this question hasn't been beaten to death already. As a
fledgling skeptic, I was wonder "what is the difference between psudo-
science and religion? Why is it "ok" to publically question the
existance of Bigfoot, but not God? It seems to me that people are very
comfortable "rolling their eyes" at UFOs and astrology, but if a point
is made about religious inconsistancies, then you become "the bad guy?"
============= Eric Krieg's response ==========
Many skeptics see things exactly as you do - in fact, there is a fairly high overlap between skeptics and atheists. The main world wide skeptics organizations of CSICOP, Skeptics and Randi's take the position of "religion is just one more extraordinary claim to be skeptical of".
The local skeptics group I am in, PhACT (like most small local groups) takes the position that it is perhaps politically more expedient ot focus on "here and now" claims like dowsing or astrology that can be directly tested than esoteric questions like the existence of God. The thinking is that our general message of critical thinking and questioning evidence would reach a far wider audience if we do not suffer knee jerk rejection from the religionist majority by being seen to "attack" such cherished beliefs. Maybe that is a cop out to avoid a hot topic, but I feel we have enough work to cover general pseudo-science and the long entrenched atheist movement can still separately cover the God question. That being said, our group tried to get involved when religionists were attacking science in our state with their creationist agenda. Likewise, a direct test of claims of supernatural healing is considered a fair target for inquiry.