The Association for Rational Thought is a new organization committed to encouraging clear thinking in all walks of life. ART encourages the investigation of paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims from a responsible, scientific viewpoint and the distribution of the results of such investigations to the public. You are cordially invited to become a charter member of ART.
On Saturday, February 15, at 10:00 AM, ART will meet at its new meeting place, the Greenwich Tavern and Restaurant on Gilbert Avenue (Driving instructions elsewhere in this issue). After a brief business meeting, ART members Bill Giles and Joe Gastright will discuss problems skeptics have in responding to paranormal claims. Their introduction will be followed by an open round table discussion.
Come prepared to present your views on such questions as: What are appropriate responses to paranormal claims? Is debunking always appropriate? Do all claims deserve the same attention? Here are some sources which will prepare you to contribute to the round table:
Hy Ruchlis. Clear Thinking: A Practical Introduction. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. 1990. According to a review in the Skeptical Inquirer (Spring, 1991, p. 308), "A former science teacher's lively introduction to the basic principles of critical analysis, illustrating how to evaluate evidence, isolate facts, and employ logical reasoning skills in everyday life. Many examples of how to identify and cut through bogus arguments, diversions, contradictions, and falsehoods found in conversation and in newspapers, magazines, and television."
Carole Wade and Carol Tavris. "Thinking Critically and Creatively." Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1990, p. 372-377. Brief, clear presentation of eight general guidelines for learning to think critically, plus a useful bibliography.
John Aach. "Science and Commonsense Skepticism." Skeptical Inquirer, Fall, 1991, p. 51. "Informal, commonsense arguments to expose gaps in the evidence and the reasoning that are perceived as supporting unsubstantiated claims."
James Lett. "A Field Guide to Critical Thinking." Skeptical Inquirer, Winter, 1990, p. 153. A brief discussion of "six simple rules to follow in examining paranormal claims:" 1) It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false. 2) Any argument offered as evidence must be sound. 3)All of the available evidence must be considered. 4) The evidence offered in support of any claim must be evaluated without self-deception. 5) If the evidence is based upon an experimental result, or if the evidence offered in support of any claim could logically be explained as coincidental, then the evidence must be repeated in subsequent experiments. 6) The evidence offered must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim (evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim.
Business Meeting. The Association for Rational Thought met on Saturday, January 18, at the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History. Joe Gastright, President, opened the meeting with a discussion of where and how often to meet. There was general agreement that a place that charged no fee would be preferable, and that general membership meetings could include trips to nearby sites of interest as well as an annual picnic meeting. Peggy Borger reported on progress in recruiting members to help with a telephone membership drive which will take place before the February meeting. An opportunity for all members to review proposed by-laws before the February meeting will be provided by publishing a draft of the by-laws in the newsletter (the draft is included in this issue). There was also discussion of possible projects, including developing a panel of experts in paranormal phenomena, tracking and influencing media coverage of paranormal incidents, and reviewing and reporting on the accuracy of psychics' New Year's predictions. No decision about a project was made.
Satanism Round Table. After the business meeting, Virginia Jergens, ART charter member and sociologist, led a round table on satanism, beginning with an introduction to satanism in the U.S. today. Evidence collected over the last decade, she said, suggests increasing belief in an ancient, secret satanic conspiracy said to be attempting to destroy American society. This conspiracy is called satanism; believers in the conspiracy are called anti-satanists. Anti- satanists are now reaching a wide audience with their views. News stories about satanism, virtually nonexistent before the 60Os, are now common on network TV news, talk shows, and prime time TV. These stories attract readers, viewers, and profits, so news media often sensationalize these stories, and present them as though they could be accurate.There is, however, no verifiable evidence that there is a secret blood cult of satanists at work in the U.S.
Nevertheless, because of rumor panics about satanic threats, children have been needlessly kept home from school, police with guns drawn have approached college students practicing a medieval play in the woods, and heavy metal rock concert sites have been vandalized. The satanic conspiracy may be a contemporary legend, but the vigilante efforts, malicious gossip, and vandalism the belief has inspired are real, and have attracted the attention of social scientists to this new resurgence of an old social phenomenon.
Two major ways of understanding satanism now exist in American society, the fundamentalist Christian perspective and the social scientific perspective. The fundamentalist Christian perspective focuses on perceptions of rising rates of violent crime, divorce, drug use, child abuse, and sexual abuse, and increasing economic insecurity, and looks for an explanation. The explanation offered by this perspective is based on the assumption that the world consists of good and evil. Good things come from God; evil comes from God's adversary, the Devil.
The hypothesis presented by the fundamentalist Christian perspective is this: the Devil controls a vast conspiracy of powerful people (doctors, lawyers, other professionals) who infiltrate society, secretly causing chaos and committing crime (for example, killing animals and infants in satanic rites). The Devil is said to lure others into his conspiracy through drugs, rock music, and role playing games like Dungeons and Dragons.
According to the fundamentalist Christian perspective there are two main sources of evidence to support this hypothesis: cult survivor accounts and stories of satanic ritual abuse told by children. In addition, objects, symbols or behavior which can be attributed to the all-pervasive hand of the Devil, for example, wearing hoods, burning candles, animal carcasses, many written symbols, or anything that seems strange from a fundamentalist Christian perspective may be cited as evidence.
From the point of view of the fundamentalist Christian, society is disintegrating into chaos around us, there is a great deal in the world to be afraid of, and the cause of this chaos and terror is the Devil, who works secretly and continuously around us, through his conspiracy of satanists. The solution to this problem is the conversion to Christianity of those who do Satan's will. Satanists, drug abusers, rock and rollers, D&D players, and satanic murderers must reject Satan and accept Christ to be saved from Satan and end the evil.
The social scientific perspective on the problem of satanism is somewhat different. Sociologists, anthropologists, and folklorists focus on the causes of the belief in satanism and on the spread of that belief. Operating on the assumption that what human beings consider good and evil is determined by social processes, not by supernatural entities, social scientists use several hypotheses to study the belief in satanism. Social scientists hypothesize that rapid social change (including changes in women's roles, changes in sexual behavior, and increasing ethnic diversity), economic insecurity (including job loss, and fear of job loss) and social disorder (violent crime, divorce and child abuse rates seen as "skyrocketing") cause strong, widespread, but not clearly focused anxiety--there is no obvious villain. This deep anxiety leads to a search for an explanation. Survey research has found that particularly among people who are less-educated, rural, and who belong to fundamentalist Christian groups, this explanation for social chaos is found in satanism.
Other hypotheses offer ways to explain how antisatanism spreads. The contemporary legend hypothesis suggests that people make sense out of their lives by telling stories about them. To less-educated, rural, fundamentalist Christians, a belief in satanism makes sense, so they tell stories about it, thus spreading the belief. The rumor panic hypothesis suggests that ignorance, economic insecurity, perception of social disorder, deep anxiety,and fundamentalist Christian beliefs lead to the rapid acceptance and spread of any satanistic story that appears. The groupthink hypothesis is also used to explain the spread of belief in a satanic conspiracy. Social psychologist Irving Janis developed this hypothesis to explain the extraordinarily poor planning Kennedy and his advisors did for the Bay of Pigs episode. A group under pressure has a problem to solve. The group must maintain unity, and therefore cannot tolerate much dissent. In an effort to maintain solidarity, the group inadvertently squelches minority opinion, and encourages conformity to the majority opinion. The majority thus loses any possibility of being corrected by new information. When the majority is wrong, this process can lead to disaster, as it did at the Bay of Pigs. This hypothesis has been used to explain the spread of belief in satanism among psychotherapists who treat MPD patients. It is believed that the therapists, not the patients, do the spreading. MPD patients are exceptionally suggestible, easily hypnotizable, and inadvertently mislead their therapists by readily coming up with stories they really believe are memories but are actually only inventions to please the therapists. The therapists, who are not research psychologists, and not aware of recent research in the area, do not realize they are being misled, and desperate for answers, find an answer in satanism.
Social scientists, although they have found no verifiable evidence of the satanic conspiracy, have found evidence which supports all of these hypotheses. A good collection of studies is found in The Satanist Scare , edited by three sociologists, James T. Richardson, Joel Best, and David G. Bromley. It is available in paperback from Aldine de Bruyter, 200 Saw Mill River Road, Hawthorne, New York 10532.
In conclusion, Dr. Jergens said, from the social scientific point of view, the satanic conspiracy does not exist. Belief in a satanic conspiracy is a social phenomenon which occurs among vulnerable people of fundamentalist Christian background when there is widespread anxiety. Anti-satanists raise fears of non-existent terrors, which result in hysteria, rumor panics, malicious gossip, violence, vandalism, and vigilante efforts. The current upsurge has been exacerbated by unscrupulous use of sensational material by the news media, by fundamentalist Christian leaders who have found they can raise money by promoting satanism, by psychotherapists treating MPD patients, and by law enforcement workers who believe in the satanic conspiracy and are well-positioned to spread the belief. Most social scientists believe that the belief in a satanic conspiracy cannot be changed, although their hypotheses suggest that higher levels of education, less economic insecurity and lower commitment to fundamentalist Christianity might reduce the problem.
Dr. Jergens's remarks were followed by a lively round table discussion, during which the meeting adjourned to an informal lunch and continued conversation at a nearby restaurant. The round table, which included anti-satanists as well as skeptical ART members, continued vigorously well into the afternoon. Special thanks go to Richard Davis and the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, who generously made the museum available for our meeting.
This glossary will provide you with basic ideas you need to understand and discuss satanism as a social phenomenon.
Change in meeting place: ART's new meeting place is the Greenwich Tavern and Restaurant, 2440 Gilbert Avenue, Cincinnati (Driving instructions elsewhere in this issue). Come to the meeting and stay for an informal and inexpensive lunch afterwards.
Change in monthly meeting day: The day for the regular monthly meeting has been changed from the second Saturday of the month to the third Saturday of the month, beginning in January, 1992.
Peggy Borger, Treasurer and Telephone Tree Chair, has added to her generous efforts for ART a telephone membership drive first urged by Porter Henry, Publicity Chair. Under Peggy's leadership, ART volunteers are calling tri-state subscribers to the Skeptical Inquirer and others whose names were suggested by members to invite them to join ART and come to the February meeting. Peggy, in addition to recruiting volunteers to make telephone calls, looked up phone numbers for all the names, and is also calling prospective members.
John Hubbard, Richard A. Bozian, Judy Findsen, John Fischer, Richard Hildebrand, John Kennedy Mary Pacinda, and Ruthann West will be making phone calls. Porter Henry devised the procedure being used in calling prospective members and a form for recording information gathered. Virginia Jergens revised and distributed Porter's materials and typed the lists of names to be called. Volunteer callers will send their completed forms to President Joe Gastright, who will will record, summarize, and report on the results of the telephone efforts.
From the Kentucky Association of Science Educators and Skeptics, courtesy of Joe Gastright
Attention Officers: Regular Executive Committee Meetings will be held after each regular monthly meeting. Please come to the meetings prepared to report on your work.
Copyright 1992-2005, The Association for Rational Thought