I'm not a Bad Person, I just Play One on the Internet

Yesterday was a bad day for skepticism. Twice, I tried to use my powers of critical thinking in light-hearted yet meaningful ways, and twice was shot down. Turns out, people don't like to have their cherished beliefs questioned. Who knew?

So, I'm talking two Facebook chats. I'll relay them here in brief.

A. Wherein I am unfriended by a chiropractor.

A local chiropractor posted a graphic depicting commonly used spices (garlic, cinnamon, ginger, turmeric, and cayenne), exclaiming "Five Cancer-fighting Species." Well, this graphic offends me on two bases: first, it is rife with logical errors (amazing how many can be packed into just nine words), and second, it may prevent someone who needs real medical intervention from receiving it.

So I commented that, "It is important to remember to continue medically prescribed treatments for cancer if they've been prescribed to you. There is little evidence that diet can prevent cancer, and no evidence that it can treat cancer." A pithy remark which addressed both of my concerns.

Not so pithy as to escape notice, though. The chiropractor promptly deleted my remark and unfriended me. Guess he's not into Facebook-style stealth debates. You can read my whining about it on the Sacramento Area Skeptics page.

B. Wherein I am accused of belittling religion.

Need image credit.

You may have heard: John B. Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka won the 2012 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on pluripotent stem cells. Someone made an awesome graphic which boils down their work into a digestible web-bite. I'll reproduce it here.

What wonderful research. It has the potential to advance stem cell treatments without the ethical baggage surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells. No magical thinking is going to get you to that result!

So I'm keeping an admittedly cynical running tally of the benefits of science versus religion. By my unofficial count, this is checkmark 3x10^57 in favor of science. So my comment was: "Shinya Yamanaka. Congratulations! Score: Science 3x10^57, Religion 0." (Sorry Mr. Gurdon, and congratulations to you, too!)

A religious friend was, apparently, offended by my remark and accused me of belittling religion. When I asked him where in my remark I belittled religion, he really was unable to say. That's because I am not belittling religion. What I am doing is pointing out its limitations.

I've written elsewhere that I think religion may have a place in society akin to art or music. It can help us to think about our higher nature. In that way it may be useful. What it cannot do is solve life's problems. That's for science. And since science is under attack from believers, my point was both valid and, hopefully, thought provoking.

As Bill Nye says, pointing out the benefits of science is not attacking religion.

C. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that magical thinking can keep us from achieving our potential as society. I earnestly want us to solve global warming, live into the coming millennia, and make it off this rock to become a galactic species. This can happen. And if it does, there's only one way: science.

But on a quotidian level, the big deal is that relying on hocus pocus and prayer can actually harm you (read about the harm of herbal remedies and extremist religions). Now, to the extent you impose your beliefs on yourself, I have no problem with that. But when you start recommending that others give up critical thinking in favor of magical thinking, I'm gonna speak up.

I spoke up. I felt bad. I slept on it. I'm good with it.

Your, Bear.