No one needs to “lump” Shermer with Libertarians or Objectivists. He owns up to it. It’s what he believes, if “belief” is the right word. (But also see below.) Shermer is an anomaly among professional pop skeptics in that he writes unashamedly about the positive features of religion, although he’s hardly a religionizer or a fundamentalist. However, if you want to better understand where the contention that atheism is a surrogate for religion comes from, you should certainly take a look at the
criticisms of Objectivism as well as
Communism (especially
Koestler’s disenchantment with Soviet Communism). The
Wikipedia article on Atheism cites a wide range of opinions on Atheism as a philosophy, a movement, and as a form of identity.
Shermer’s a pretty cool guy, actually. I disagree with the Libertarian stuff, and have many criticisms of (or as some around here would say,
“suppressive acts against”) pop skepticism, but he’s much less combative than James Randi -- or
Robert Sheaffer, whose main contribution to pop skep is his thorough, irrefutable, and
scientific “debunking” of Feminism. (Yes, I’m being sarcastic about Sheaffer.)
But if I read your post correctly, you’re unaware of these issues within your movements. You do also know that
Martin Gardner is religious, don’t you? And that Penn Jillette supports
The Society for the Separation of School and State, a primarily religious-right organization which snarkily
blames public schooling for the death of Terri Schiavo (speaking of
“Bullshit™”).
Skepticism and Atheism are
not the sole provinces of lefties. If anything, the
Randroids (acolytes of Ayn Rand, NOT James Randi) are even more gung-ho with their own
Objectivist assertions that they are defending the Citadel of Science. There is also a growing literature of Skeptics “debunking” Objectivists, like Albert Ellis’ 1962
Is Objectivism a Religion? (out-of-print but
available through Amazon). Shermer is no longer a Objectivist, but a Libertarian; his book
Why People Believe Weird Things contains a shorter treatment of the subject of Ellis’ book. He’s “conventional” in the sense that like
Harry Browne (also see the
Wikipedia article), he is not a fanatic, and has been able to listen to those who disagree with him. But I am nearly certain that he opposes government programs based on philosophical principles rather than empirical evidence.
And you need not be so defensive of James Randi. While you were studying rhetorical fallacies (yes, as I, myself, have done), you probably also came across figures of speech, including
“Alliteration”. Because here is what I wrote:
... the followers of Rand and Randi. ...
It contains two double alliterations, so it sounds somewhat poetic, even though I am no great stylist. Since there are followers of both Rand and Randi, simultaneously, it is also evidentially true.
--p!
Featuring my new DU quote-inserting macro!