Healthy Skepticism *Updated*

The famous Canadian science fiction writer Robert J. Sawyer recently wrote an article published in the Ottawa Citizen titled 'Unhealthy Skepticism'. I suggest you read his article before reading my post because my post is a response.

Dear Mr. Sawyer,
In your article 'Unhealthy Skepticism' published in today's Ottawa Citizen, you criticize the modern skepticism movement's treatment of religion. A lot of what you criticize, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Darwin fish for example, are reactions created by the skeptical community to the creationism and intelligent design movement. As Canadians, it is difficult for us to appreciate the struggle that our American friends to the south have to deal with when trying to keep pseudo science out of the classroom. There have been many techniques that have been attempted, and the technique of ridicule (which you obviously distaste) can be valid in many situations. It's fine and dandy for people to have religious beliefs (no matter how silly or wrong) as long as it remains a private affair, but as soon as they try to force it on the public (like in the American science class, or the Pledge of Allegiance), it becomes open to criticism.

Unfortunately, reasonable criticism may not be enough. It is very difficult to reason a person out of a belief when they did not use reason to get into that belief. The best success story that I can think of is described in the book Freakonomics. The Ku Klux Klan was not driven to near extinction by convincing their members that 'racism is wrong' (which any rational person would agree with), but by revealing their secrets on the Adventures of Superman radio show. When the Klan members came home, they saw their kids playing "Superman vs. the Klan", and using their silly secret phrases. Most members were so embarrassed that they stopped attending meetings. Now, thanks to ridicule, the Klan is a joke.

I do not mean to imply that Christians are like the Klan, just that ridicule is sometimes the best method to combat irrational ideas.

I don't blame Skeptics for suddenly viewing religion, in general, as a threat. Books like Sam Harris' 'The End of Faith' make a convincing argument that religion, even moderate religion, is detrimental to modern secular society.

Does religion, in general, jeopardize our ability to conduct scientific research? If so, what is the best method to combat its negative influence? Some choose ridicule, some choose reason, and sometimes a careful combination of the two. Which method is most effective? If ridicule is most effective, is it ethical? Does the end justify the means? It is very difficult to ridicule bad ideas, when those ideas are cherished by many people. I do not think that if an idea is a religious one, it should be protected from ridicule for fear of offending someone. The fear of offence can limit our ability to question reality.

Also, I agree with your distaste for the term 'Brights'. I don't use it personally to describe myself since I think that people view me as arrogant enough already. I can only respond by saying that the 'Bright' movement has lost a lot of steam in the skeptical community. Most skeptics, I find, prefer the term 'Secular Humanism', myself included.

Update: Austin Cline at atheism.about.com gave a great rebuttal to Mr. Sawyer's article, he even quotes me!