Over the years, a number of prominent skeptics (such as DJ Grothe and Daniel Luxton) have objected to inclusion of atheism under skepticism. According to such individuals, atheism and skepticism are different subjects, and efforts to marry them will unnecessarily turn people of faith away from skepticism.
I disagree with this analysis. Aside from the idea of existence of god(s), which may or may not be scientifically amenable to investigation depending on the definition, numerous religious claims such as the afterlife and effectiveness of prayer in fact fall under the realm of science. The overwhelming rejection of the idea of mind-body dualism by neuroscientists essentially makes afterlife claims untenable, and biggest prayer studies have failed to show any effectiveness. And here an the Skeptic Ink Network, we have a very good example of the application of scientific/skeptical method to religion, which is John’s Outsider Test of Faith.
But regardless of what you think of this question, there are times that skepticism and atheism do, in fact, pursue common goals. Health related public policies based on religious doctrine as opposed to medical literature showcases this: for atheists, it is a violation of the secularism as a principle of governance, and for skeptics it is harmful, state-supported pseudoscience.
And we now see this unfold before our eyes. As California banned therapy aimed at “converting” gays to heterosexuals, therapists performing this practice are suing the state.
Two therapists who try to turn gay people straight, along with a student who says he was successfully converted to heterosexuality, are suing nearly two dozen California state officials, including Gov. Jerry Brown, saying a new state law infringes on their civil rights.
Civil rights?
The plaintiffs’ legal team will file a motion sometime this month seeking an injunction before the law goes into effect, attorney Matt McReynolds told CNN on Thursday.
“We have not seen the state of California go this far before in trying to restrict speech,” McReynolds said.
That is non-sense, of course. Presenting medically unsound practices as effective therapy is false advertising. No one is restricting their freedom to talk about it, they just can’t abuse their state-issued licenses to make it look like it is sanctioned by the state.
Why should this bother secularists and atheists?
Among other concerns, the complaint details arguments that SB 1172 violates Californians’ rights to privacy, freedom of religion, and due process.
“Certainly, the religious freedom aspect is very strong in this case,” McReynolds said.
Quite clearly, the motivation of this “therapy” is religion, as they admit explicitly. And once the state sanctions it, it becomes a violation of separation of state and church.
And what does science tell us about this approach?
The American Psychiatric Association — which is the world’s largest of its kind, with more than 36,000 members — has determined that sexual orientation change efforts, as the complaint calls the controversial therapy, pose a great risk, including increasing the likelihood or severity of depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior for those undergoing therapy. Therapists’ alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already felt by patients, the association says.
Earlier this year, psychiatrist Robert L. Spitzer apologized for his 2003 study of reparative therapy in which he suggested that the practice could help gays and lesbians become straight. He said the study was deeply flawed.
“I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy,” Spitzer said in a letter to the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior. “I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some ‘highly motivated’ individuals.”
But evidence won’t convince the proponents of this practice. (Did it ever convince psychics, fortunetellers and astrologists?)
The non-profit Pacific Justice Institute, whom McReynolds works for, filed the lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court on behalf of family therapist Donald Welch, psychiatrist Dr. Anthony Duk, and Aaron Bitzer, who is studying to become a therapist, and who court papers say “seeks to share his personal experiences with future patients as a mental health professional.”
… according to the complaint, when Bitzer underwent “therapy described in the statute as” sexual orientation change efforts and reparative therapy, he “found it quite helpful in achieving his goals.” Bitzer had “experienced same-sex attractions. … However, he never believed the simplistic message of the Gay Community, which states that ‘we are born this way and should just live accordingly,'” the complaint says.
A sample size of one, and a biased one at that! Perhaps this future therapist needs to take a basic course in statistics?
It remains to be seen how the courts rule in this case. For the sake of young people who would be subjected to potentially harmful and traumatic treatment at the hands of frauds, I hope they uphold the law here.
