Commentary, March 17, 2004 � Science & Pseudoscience: the Differences, Hardly Just “Adequate,” Dawkins In Las Vegas, How You Can Assist, and In Conclusion�.
James Randi is on a mission from, well, James Randi. The magician turned skeptical evangelist has decided to defend “reason” against the religious. His site is interesting and is a good peak into the mirror world of religious skepticism. This tiny group has its own rules, stars (a place where Eugenie Scott is famous), and fights. It has most of the bad elements of organized religion without any of the light heartedness or charity provided by centuries of hard intellectual labor.
Sadly Randi is no advocate of reason, just a “closed philosophy of science” in which there are fewer things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of by most philosophers. He takes on soft targets, such as psychics, and rarely comments on Christian thinkers such as Moreland and Plantinga. (Try the search yourself.) If you are Harvard educated creationist Kurt Wise, Randi ignores you. If you are a minister in a small town who says something silly, Randi will feature you on his web site.
His most recent article on science is a good example of this problem. Well written, Randi is a very clear writer, it explores a lay definition of science. My complaint is not that the lightly educated Randi is not up to the job of doing philosophy of science. He isn’t, practicing philosophy without credentials, but that his article isn’t even up to good lay understandings of the discipline of philosophy of science. Philosophers of science struggle with ways to demarcate religion and science. Not Randi. He knows and pretends everyone else rational knows as well. He doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of informed critics. His definitions of religion would mean that all people who believe in miracles are (by his definition) irrational. That is, to say the least, stunning in its arrogance and ignorance. If only C.S. Lewis had read Randi! If only Al Plantinga and the Notre Dame philosophy faculty understood science!
Of course, religious people often make similar claims. . . we sometimes act as if all atheists were just stupid unable to see what is obvious. That is not true, but it is comforting to the true believer. However, mostly I have found these religious people to actually be very insecure in their beliefs. They cannot see ambiguity, because it would make them uncomfortable. Randi and the secular sub-culture remind me of the same thing. The difference is that their culture is so small. They are like a tiny Christian sect, inbred, and argumentative. Troll their sites for yourself. I pity them and shall try to pray for them.
