Trying out atheism, really?

"Zak, over the years on this list I have never seen you admit that you were wrong about anything. Mere facts do not sway you. This is like Lily said in another post. Arguing with someone about their opinion is a waste."


I'm very careful not to argue about things I don't know about firsthand, or haven't researched. And if something interests me I tend to research it to death. You are being unfair in claiming that facts don't sway me. I would say the very opposite is true. What often happens, however, is that "facts" that are generally agreed - "the consensus view" - aren't really facts at all, and don't stand up to scrutiny. They are accepted because they have the weight of various authorities behind them, which means that anyone who questions them is automatically regarded as a heretic and a crackpot. So I have views on things like vaccination, AIDS, global warming, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., that are at odds with the prevailing view. But my view on these subjects is based on the facts, whereas the consensus view is based on a mythical or superstitious view. And contrary to what you say, I'm open to being proved wrong - but only with testable facts, not with authority-based opinion. In fact this is something that has always annoyed me about self-styled "skeptics and critical thinkers": they always attack soft targets. Some grubby medium who claims to be in contact with Beethoven is fair game, or some Hindu fakir (or faker) who claims to be able to live on nothing but air; but never the claims made by governments, the medical establishment and other institutions that have authority. Most skeptics are nauseatingly conventional and unwilling to question "facts" that have "official" backing.

Example.

Here in Europe, homeopathy is regarded - and officially recognised - as an effective form of medical treatment. Homeopathic medicines have to be dispensed by licensed pharmacists. If you go into a pharmacy in Spain or Italy or Germany and ask for medicine to treat your 'flu, there is a strong likelihood that you will be offered homeopathic medicine.
Now I know, because I've researched this subject and followed all the independent trials, that homeopathic medicine has zero effect (apart, of course, from the placebo effect). It doesn't work. And yet it is routinely dispensed in pharmacies to hundreds of millions of people for a wide range of medical conditions (who testify as to it's effectiveness!). Homeopathy is a multimillion euro industry here, just as the vaccination industry is a multimillion dollar industry in the US.

The fact that something has no scientific basis, doesn't actually work - and, further, that there is no evidence at all to support the belief that it works! - doesn't prevent it from being widely accepted and endorsed by both the medical establishment and the government (ironically - laughably - homeopathic medicine is the only "alternative" medicine that is regulated here, as it is considered to be more potent than herbal remedies, essential oils etc.).

And so - because I am in the holistic health business - I have this argument all the time here in Spain.
"So you're claiming that homeopathy doesn't work!?"
"That's what I'm saying."
"At all?"
"Yes. I'm saying that it doesn't work at all."
"So all these medical experts are wrong, and you're right?"
"Yes."
"All these doctors and pharmacists with degrees in medicine and pharmacology... all the millions of people who say they've been cured by homeopathic medicine - they're all wrong, and you're right?"
"Yes."


This is the power of authority. Even though no one can come up with an ounce of proof to support their belief, they find it inconceivable that millions of people, including expert professionals, could be completely wrong. Would the government require licensing if homeopath didn't work? Would homeopaths be required to go through all those years of training? Would pharmacies (who are required to have a degree in pharmacology) dispense a product that had no effect?

When my cousin came to spend a week in Spain he stayed out in the sun too long (they all do it, even though I warn them) and got burned. I accompanied him to the local pharmacy to buy ointment. The pharmacist tried to sell him homeopathic ointment. I said, "You're a qualified pharmacist, right? Can you tell me what is the active ingredient in this ointment?" "It's homeopathic," she replied, "There are no chemicals, so it's completely safe to use." Then she starts giving me a lecture about how homeopathic medicine works. I told her not to bother, and that she was selling quack medicine that was no more therapeutic than tap water. "Actually," she said, "homeopathy is very effective."
We bought calamine lotion and left. But the thing is, she'll be selling homeopathic medicine for the rest of her life - to people who will come back and tell her how well it worked for them.

Now, switch to the US or UK (the UK isn't in Europe, you understand) and say the same thing about vaccination - that it actually doesn't work - and you get exactly the same response.
"So you're claiming that vaccination doesn't work!?"
"That's what I'm saying, yes."
"So all these medical experts are wrong, and you're right?"
"Yes."
"Well, that's just insane. Of course it works. Would the government be spending millions on vaccination programs if it didn't work?"
"Yes."


In both cases you can point to the evidence - the FACTS - for either homeopathy or vaccination and PROVE that neither is effective. But even if you can persuade people to look at the evidence and the statistics they will CONTINUE TO BELIEVE in the consensus view because social compliance is far more powerful than mere facts. Evidence doesn't really mean anything. People are only capable of believing what they are authorised to believe. The psychological power of that authority is greatly underestimated.