CFI's response to other secular groups

[2PhiloVoid]

So, in this corner of the ring, we have CFI's response to other secular groups who are accusing CFI of failing to uphold a certain position on human rights:

Response to Secular Groups that Claim Scientists Are Shills for Christian Nationalism | Center for Inquiry

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) stands for reason, science, and secularism and has been doing so for nearly fifty years. We are often the speakers of inc ...

centerforinquiry.org

What is CFI? For those of you who don't know, it's the Center For Inquiry, a think-tank of selective scientists who do their best to fight pseudo-science and promote mainstream science in the public realm. But even so, here we go below......................​

CFI: Center for Inquiry​

And in this other corner, we have the "other" atheists, secularists, and alternative choices political crowd saying (as is represented here by The Friendly Atheist):

"The Center For Inquiry is still pushing anti-trans bigotry under the guise of science and reason !!!"​

​

Thoughts? Ideas? Gripes? Deep contentions? Opportunity for laughing about how politics makes for strange bedfellows (yes, I'm making a pun)?

I mean, c'mon now, folks!!! Ya gotta luv it when contending political philosophical positions, both of which are against Christianity, clash with each other over "THE NATURE AND FINDINGS OF SCIENCE."

None of this sort of thing is brand new, really, but it's still a popcorn moment, nevertheless...............................


"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent on each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is–insofar as it is thinkable at all–primitive and muddled... ..."
― Albert Einstein

 

[essentialsaltes]

Thoughts? Ideas? Gripes?

Oh yes, gripes. I have them.

For decades, I've been a member of CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

Although dismissive of what we might call credulous religiosity [weeping icons and Paluxy man-tracks] it was not a particularly anti-religious organization.

But as its founders and luminaries, well, died, the organization has had to evolve. First to rebrand as CSI as part of CFI, and then...

I was very leery of the merger of CSICOP with the Richard Dawkins Foundation, and really the years since then have had me questioning my attachment. RDF President Robyn Blumner became and remains president of the joint CFI, and the current furore is presumably about her article in the Skeptical Inquirer reviewing the Cass Review. And obviously she also penned the response to criticism in the OP.

I'm not really qualified to judge the science, but if nothing else her article does seem to depend entirely on this one source as the determiner of 'the' scientific truth on the matter.

Some of the best reading in the Skeptical Inquirer has always been the Letters/Forum where readers deal out criticism of articles and authors respond. Some of the issues that verge on the political like climate change or "The Bell Curve" have led to fascinating exchanges.

I'm hoping this will be true for this article, but CFI is already circling the wagons.

But, in summation, CSICOP has changed and I don't like it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Shouldn't this be in the "Culture Wars" section of CF?

Christian Forums

 

[SelfSim]

Thoughts? Ideas? Gripes? Deep contentions?

As a slight aside:
The article mentions the issues arising in sports competition:

There are other places where the biology of sex has a significant role to play. In sports, for instance. Once male puberty has occurred, it is no longer fair physiologically for whoever has benefited from it to compete in almost any category of women’s sports. At least that is what the science and evidence demonstrate.

I've always been fascinated about the whole idea that sports is all about competition in the first place. Where did that come from anyway .. and why must that be so? Is it necessarily a realistic part of what defines sports?
FWIW: I tend to lean towards being opposed to that whole idea. For me, sports is about staying healthy and producing inspirational displays of what the human body is capable of, including when its pushed to its physical limits.

I haven't reached a firm conclusion on transgenderism in sports as yet, but I think as the arguments progress, transgender sports may well be better off being carved out into its own category, ie: the same as women's competition has been carved out from men's and para-athletics being handled separately(?) .. I don't know there, (of course) ..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Shouldn't this be in the "Culture Wars" section of CF?

Christian Forums

How did you come to that conclusion? I'm not seeing any prior premises leading up to your conclusion singular "question."

I sort of need to know your premises.........................................so I can then know which Informal Fallacy I'll need to drop in your lap, Hans.

Personally, I would think that the question: "Is sex a binary or a non-binary characteristic of the human species?" is a scientific question rather than a cultural one.

We'd all like to know, and being that this is the Physics and Life Sciences section, then the issue is a relevant and live one, and it's one, I might add, that in this specific forum isn't going to be answered by merely culling from the Bible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As a slight aside:
The article mentions the issues arising in sports competition:

I've always been fascinated about the whole idea that sports is all about competition in the first place. Where did that come from anyway .. and why must that be so? Is it necessarily a realistic part of what defines sports?

I guess we'll have to ask the ancient Greeks? Got a time machine handy?

FWIW: I tend to lean towards being opposed to that whole idea. For me, sports is about staying healthy and producing inspirational displays of what the human body is capable of, including when its pushed to its physical limits.

There's actually a whole area of study about the presence, use and meaning of Sports in Society. In fact, when you mentioned this, I went over to one of my boxes of books I had packed away and pulled out a old dusty textbook I had stored there---

Coakley, Jay J. Sport in society: issues & controversies. No. Ed. 7. 2001. It has an interesting Contents layout.​

​

I know one thing: I'm not a big, big fan of the idea of "competition." I prefer cooperation, but at the same time, I was never one to pass up seeing someone like Scott Hamilton do some backflips on the ice or an Air Jordan score a shot.

I haven't reached a firm conclusion on transgenderism in sports as yet, but I think as the arguments progress, transgender sports may well be better off being carved out into its own category, ie: the same as women's competition has been carved out from men's and para-athletics being handled separately(?) .. I don't know there, (of course) ..

Your guess is as good as mine. At the moment, I'm sort of leaning toward everyone having their own division in sports. But what do I know?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm hoping this will be true for this article, but CFI is already circling the wagons.

But, in summation, CSICOP has changed and I don't like it.

I found the following linked article, and I think I more or less see what you're saying about this:

"We Do Not Apologize!": Saturday and Sunday at CSICon 2024 | Center for Inquiry

If there was one idea that popped up most frequently throughout Saturday’s CSICon presentations, it was the many conflicts between facts and feelings, betwe ...

centerforinquiry.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

How did you come to that conclusion? I'm not seeing any prior premises leading up to your conclusion singular "question."

I sort of need to know your premises.........................................so I can then know which Informal Fallacy I'll need to drop in your lap, Hans.

I'm a very informal person, I don't bother with formal fallacies. I don't even own a tie. (Not that I can find.)

Personally, I would think that the question: "Is sex a binary or a non-binary characteristic of the human species?" is a scientific question rather than a cultural one.

We'd all like to know, and being that this is the Physics and Life Sciences section, then the issue is a relevant and live one, and it's one, I might add, that in this specific forum isn't going to be answered by merely culling from the Bible.

It's not about the science of such things, it is about an ongoing political/culture fight going on in some secular organizations about sex and gender. If you wanted to open a thread about the biology of sex and gender in this section you could. (Don't expect it to last though.)

(I'm kind of disappointed you didn't get the joke in my link.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm a very informal person, I don't bother with formal fallacies. I don't even own a tie. (Not that I can find.)

It's not about the science of such things, it is about an ongoing political/culture fight going on in some secular organizations about sex and gender. If you wanted to open a thread about the biology of sex and gender in this section you could. (Don't expect it to last though.)

(I'm kind of disappointed you didn't get the joke in my link.)

My apologies, Hans. I'm guessing that due to either the paint chips or the fluoride toothpaste I ingested as a child, I'm a little slow on the uptake.

 

[sfs]

I've always been fascinated about the whole idea that sports is all about competition in the first place. Where did that come from anyway .. and why must that be so? Is it necessarily a realistic part of what defines sports?

I'd say it is. For me, the primary goal of sports is to provide humans, especially male humans, with an outlet to compete against one another without stabbing or shooting one another or starting world wars.

 

[SelfSim]

I'd say it is. For me, the primary goal of sports is to provide humans, especially male humans, with an outlet to compete against one another without stabbing or shooting one another or starting world wars.

It ain't workin' too well towards that purpose then ..

 

[essentialsaltes]

Potential for Kumbaya, potential for Knives Out:

To mark the 100th anniversary of the historic Scopes “Monkey Trial,” the Center for Inquiry (CFI) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) will host the Scopes Trial Centennial Conference July 18–20, 2025, at the Chattanoogan Hotel in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

[Dawkins recently resigned from the FFRF's 'Honorary' board over the gender flap.]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Potential for Kumbaya, potential for Knives Out:

To mark the 100th anniversary of the historic Scopes “Monkey Trial,” the Center for Inquiry (CFI) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) will host the Scopes Trial Centennial Conference July 18–20, 2025, at the Chattanoogan Hotel in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

[Dawkins recently resigned from the FFRF's 'Honorary' board over the gender flap.]

That ought to be a very interesting roster of seminars and, I guess, debates, especially since 'Q' himself will be there. Got get some of that Inquisitorial comic relief going.............

 

[AV1611VET]

To mark the 100th anniversary of the historic Scopes “Monkey Trial,”

... in which John Scopes was found GUILTY.

 

[essentialsaltes]

... in which John Scopes was found GUILTY.

See, everyone can celebrate the anniversary!

 

[AV1611VET]

See, everyone can celebrate the anniversary!

LOL -- good comeback!

 

[NxNW]

Oh yes, gripes. I have them.

For decades, I've been a member of CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

Although dismissive of what we might call credulous religiosity [weeping icons and Paluxy man-tracks] it was not a particularly anti-religious organization.

But as its founders and luminaries, well, died, the organization has had to evolve. First to rebrand as CSI as part of CFI, and then...

I was very leery of the merger of CSICOP with the Richard Dawkins Foundation, and really the years since then have had me questioning my attachment. RDF President Robyn Blumner became and remains president of the joint CFI, and the current furore is presumably about her article in the Skeptical Inquirer reviewing the Cass Review. And obviously she also penned the response to criticism in the OP.

I'm not really qualified to judge the science, but if nothing else her article does seem to depend entirely on this one source as the determiner of 'the' scientific truth on the matter.

Some of the best reading in the Skeptical Inquirer has always been the Letters/Forum where readers deal out criticism of articles and authors respond. Some of the issues that verge on the political like climate change or "The Bell Curve" have led to fascinating exchanges.

I'm hoping this will be true for this article, but CFI is already circling the wagons.

But, in summation, CSICOP has changed and I don't like it.

I attended the Amazing Meeting in Vegas years ago to meet James Randi, and had also seen Paul Kurtz speak a few years before that. I've seen Dawkins on numerous occasions as well. After Randi's death, it seems like his entire site has been taken down, and with Dawkins retiring, I'm not even sure where there might be forums for skeptics at this point.