My friends Justin Vacula and Karla Porter are in D.C. this weekend for the second Women in Secularism conference. I have faith that they will be model attendees, and that they will have a few interesting conversations with the sort of freethinking people who believe in engaging rather than shunning those with whom they may disagree on a few sensitive issues. I trust also that they will learn a good deal from the presentations themselves, which will undoubtedly be of great interest.
I am a strong supporter of the CFI, and I profoundly believe in their mission statement:
The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.
To oppose and supplant the mythological narratives of the past, and the dogmas of the present, the world needs an institution devoted to promoting science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. The Center for Inquiry is that institution.
At the Center for Inquiry, we believe that evidence-based reasoning, in which humans work together to address common concerns, is critical for modern world civilization. Moreover, unlike many other institutions, we maintain that scientific methods and reasoning should be utilized in examining the claims of both pseudoscience and religion. We reject mysticism and blind faith. No topic should be placed off limits to scrutiny—certainly not fringe science and religion, which have an enormous influence on beliefs and conduct.
We also maintain that values are properly the subject of study and discussion as much as empirical claims. The Center for Inquiry studies and promotes human values based on a naturalistic outlook. Ideological doctrine and religious dogma have no more right to dictate our moral norms than they do to influence scientific research.
In the ongoing kerfuffle between skepticism and feminism, much of the pushback has been from those who believe that feminism is one of the “dogmas of the present” which must not be “placed off limits to scrutiny” by the all-too-common tactic of smearing anyone who dares question feminist claims. Personally, I assume that feminist theory has a lot to offer, and many arguments that are both valid and sound, but I doubt whether those offerings can be readily accepted by practising skeptics so long as they are accompanied by the usual demonization and poisoning the well.
I look forward to a future reconciliation of feminism and skepticism, in which skeptics are allowed to be skeptical of feminist theories and feminists are actively encouraged to promote feminist ideas within the skeptical community, subject to the usual expectations of taking a reasoned and evidential approach. With any luck at all, having the chance to meet other skeptics and humanists face to face will move this process forward, and that right soon.
