I went to the two premier scepticism events in the UK in 2009 and 2010. The intellectual elitism at the first put me off big style, but I returned the next year because it happened to coincide with a trip to London and my brother was there too. The intellectual elitism was worse, and the sneering tone of many of the participants was even more off putting. So much so that I probably won't attend another large event like that again. Besides, it was expensive compared to juggling festivals, and juggling festivals are many times more fun.
I didn't read the original article, but unless you've been in a room with 800 self declared sceptics, and also grown up attending jesus-camp style church conferences, you might have a hard time believing how similar they felt. To me. Personal anecdote only.
Indeed I am. I agree wholeheartedly with Pete's post, especially this:
You can demand evidence for everything you hear, but eventually that stops getting you anywhere. We like getting stuff done, so yes, we very often only demand evidence for particularly contentious issues.
So, I went home (and went to bed and now it's the next day, whatever) and watched the video. Once again life hits me with irony, as in the very first minutes of the video (0:27-0:37), Sagan says in that voice of his "What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we like to believe, but only what is supported by hard evidence". Pretty much the exact idea I don't have the words for.
You might have a hard time believing how similar they felt. To me. Personal anecdote only.
I'm in a similar boat. I've lived in a college town for 8 years now. There are a lot of people that have taken a "leap of faith" somewhere down the line in their education and accepted something as absolute truth, often forgetting some tenant of science or logic in the process.
A really non-confrontational example of this is the recent OPERA experiment results from CERN. Some of my friends are physicists, many are engineers, even more of them have at least undergraduate physics courses behind them and at least a basic grasp of calculus. What do you suppose is the skeptic's response to this research should be?
Is it (a) assume the research is invalid, this is impossible - previous science says so...
or (b) apply occam's razor, the simplest possible result is that the research is most likely flawed in some way...
or (c) just as much as one should be skeptical of this research without further evidence, one must also be skeptical of immediately taking stance (a) or (b) until more evidence supports these views - or more evidence supports the OPERA experiment.
I've seen a solid mix of a's, b's, and c's. Some people have "skin in the game" on this, and they are equally mixed. I am a rather unconcerned outsider, and I fall into a (c) holding pattern. When I heard about such an unexpected result, I read into as much detail as I could looking for an obvious path to (a) or (b), but I didn't see any way to get there based on the level of detail that went into the research. I quickly hit my upper bound to gather more information without having to vastly expand my understanding of physics to make more progress. So I'm going to stay at (c) until I can be convinced one way or another.
I come down to the line of thinking that anything but applying the scientific method will end up in a quagmire. And I also accept that while the scientific method is essentially "the best tool we have for the job", it's still not a guarantee. There are things in play that we can't overcome... "the mind-body problem", "induction is still induction", "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics", "all we have is what we observe", etc.
One other random musing just for the sake of bringing it to the table since it's also on my mind.
Let's say you have two possible universes.
In universe (a), everything is governed by a series of principles. For any given state, these principles would dictate the effect of that state (everything that will happen from that state forward).
In universe (b), there are no principles, but rather an infinite and exhaustive list of states exists including all possibilities that can ever or will ever exist in that universe and the state that follows it.
Can a == b? That is, can you express a principled universe as an infinite and exhaustive list of states? Can you express an infinite and exhaustive list of states as a series (perhaps itself, infinitely long) of principles?
My inclination, coming from the view of a programmer who flips between "principle-like code" to exhaustive lists of data and back constantly, is yes. And this belief puts me in a weird place where I will always have the thought that everything we've observed could possibly "just so happen" to be that way rather than it being an elegant (in relative terms) list of rules/laws/theories/principles.
In universe (b), there are no principles, but rather an infinite and exhaustive list of states ... and the state[s] that follow [them].
I'm pretty sure that means it has principles (or 'rules'). Think of finite-state automata: they are exactly like that (except possibly for the finite-state part, if you don't agree with quantum theory), but they also have rules.
I'm in a similar boat. I've lived in a college town for 8 years now. There are a lot of people that have taken a "leap of faith" somewhere down the line in their education and accepted something as absolute truth, often forgetting some tenant of science or logic in the process.
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I'm talking about something waaaaay different to your post. I'm not talking about evidence or questioning or standards or rules or anything.
What I'm talking about is a speaker standing in front of a packed room of maybe 800 people, saying something along the lines of "We're all smart, and everyone who doesn't think like us are stupid" (though maybe not in those words) and receiving a round of applause or a big laugh. Not everyone was laughing at the stupid non-sceptics, or cheering on their own intelligence, but it was more than half. I didn't like how none of the "leaders" picked up on this or addressed it in any way.
If someone doesn't agree with you, it isn't because they are less intelligent. And if you are correct on a matter, it isn't because you are MORE intelligent. You're just lucky. Someone happened to tell you about critical thinking or science or scepticism at a time when you were open to the idea, and you've discovered it works for you. That is it. That is the only thing that sets you apart. Dumb luck. Circumstances outside of your control. Nothing more.
I found it similar to Randian thinkers who sneer at poor people. "They just need to work harder, and then they'll be rich like me!" Yeah, as though you got to where you are today by pure skill and hard work, and not the luck of your birth, upbringing, health, skin colour, economic standing, help from other people, use of government-controlled resources, etc, etc, etc. These sceptics seem to be saying "They just need to think harder, and then they'll come to the same conclusions as me!" Yeah, as though you got to your present mindset just by thinking hard, and not the luck of your birth, upbringing, health, economic standing, help from other people, skin colour, etc, etc, etc.
Some people then use their innate intelligence and thinking skills go further in some fields than others, of course. I'm not saying some people are not more intelligent than others, but non-scepticism does not equal lack of intelligence.
In universe (b), there are no principles, but rather an infinite and exhaustive list of states ... and the state[s] that follow [them].
I'm pretty sure that means it has principles (or 'rules'). Think of finite-state automata: they are exactly like that (except possibly for the finite-state part, if you don't agree with quantum theory), but they also have rules.
I don't disagree, which is basically my point. I havn't ever quite understood the generalism vs. particularism argument. I'm of the opinion that any generalist set can be defined within a particularist set, and any particularist set can be defined as a generalist set.
I'm in a similar boat. I've lived in a college town for 8 years now. There are a lot of people that have taken a "leap of faith" somewhere down the line in their education and accepted something as absolute truth, often forgetting some tenant of science or logic in the process.
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I'm talking about something waaaaay different to your post. I'm not talking about evidence or questioning or standards or rules or anything.
I think you were unclear, but I was also. I am of the opinion that the people that have that sense of intellectual elitism are not actually living up to thier own standards. I think that being an elitist skeptic is a contradiction of being a "good" skeptic. Being a "good" skeptic involves a little admitted uncertainty about anything, and as such you shouldn't be mocking those that believe differently than yourself because you could possibly be wrong. I kinda changed the vector of my post part-way through because I'm trying (perhaps failing though) to express my skepticism of skepticism (recursive).
I have no scepticism of scepticism, as the ideas and methods seem to arrive at the truth. The word "elitist" has nothing to do with truth claims, evidence, proof, critical thinking or anything like that. It means that you hold yourself above others in terms of status. This could mean that you don't want non-elites to have power, or it could mean you think they are less worthy than yourself, or deserving of ridicule.
You are looking at the term elite as in "elite athlete" and in that way, you are right. An elite sceptic would indeed be the one to question everything, including everything they do or think. But I'm talking about "elitist sceptics" which is another topic entirely. I LIKE elite sceptics. They are the ones who make me question things I've not thought about before. I don't like elitist sceptics.
I have no scepticism of scepticism, as the ideas and methods seem to arrive at the truth. The word "elitist" has nothing to do with truth claims, evidence, proof, critical thinking or anything like that. It means that you hold yourself above others in terms of status. This could mean that you don't want non-elites to have power, or it could mean you think they are less worthy than yourself, or deserving of ridicule.
You are looking at the term elite as in "elite athlete" and in that way, you are right. An elite sceptic would indeed be the one to question everything, including everything they do or think. But I'm talking about "elitist sceptics" which is another topic entirely. I LIKE elite sceptics. They are the ones who make me question things I've not thought about before. I don't like elitist sceptics.
I am not using the word elite in the way you think I'm using it. I am using it in the same way you are. I am just under the assumption that to be elitist towards other people as a skeptic makes you a poor skeptic.
We do disagree though regarding skepticism of skepticism. I think its' a fundamental requirement of skepticism - that anything you grasp for will never be quite complete. It's a matter of making (and applying) the best possible assumptions - but you should also recognize that they are still inherently assumptions like others.
Edit: Actually one other thing your post made me think on was the indoctrination of certain thoughts. And your first reply to me parallels one of my problems with "poor skepticism" as I'm calling it here. If someone is only a skeptic because that is what they were taught while they had an "open mind" that was maleable... that's a poor reason to be a skeptic. If it is equally likely (or perhaps unequally, but a random chance, aka luck) that they could be bigotted in a different way... then are they really a skeptic? Or do they blindly believe a thing that makes them skeptical of all other things?
Many people get a lot of attention on the internet for saying or writing things like "Atheist and skeptics are just the same as religious people!"
They go on to say things like "Skeptics like to take down the beliefs of others, but they never question their own beliefs."
Near the end of the rant, you'll probably find accusations of elitism and arrogance.
Personally I think there is a confusion between the labels of "elite skeptics" and "elitist skeptics". There is some overlap between the groups, but from my own anecdotal evidence, not very much.
I have no problem with people who are not skeptical about every one of their beliefs. My problem is with those people who aren't skeptical of the reasons they THINK they are skeptical.
It's a tricky concept, but maybe I can explain.
Not everyone can be skeptical of everything. There are loads of areas where I don't think skeptically at all. This is the only way to get through my day, otherwise I'd never get anything done. I'd spend all the time investigating every tiny detail of every tiny truth claim, and never be able to have an awesome, albeit slightly random, life.
Who can really be that skeptical? Not us everyday people. And yet "skeptics" come under fire for NOT examining every single thing. And because we believe some things without question, and challenge a certain set of beliefs of others, we are called arrogant and elitist.
For that attention to detail we rely on elite skeptics. These can be professional scientists, or they can be trusted journalists or public figures who communicate the current state of scientific thought.
When Ben Goldacre says "Homeopathy is bullshit" I don't rush out to do my own tests on diluted water. I just take his word on it. There is a virtuous circle of trust among scientists and science writers that allows them to reach a consensus on certain topics.
Yay for the elite skeptics!
My problem is with elit*ist* skeptics, and I have a good working definition of the term.
First, let me state that I have no problems with any single belief or stance on any issue an elitist skeptic might talk about, or browbeat others about. The chances are they are 100% correct on the matter when held against the standards of modern science.
My only problem is the reason that they THINK they are skeptics, and are therefore scientifically right. The reason they believe they skeptics is their own intelligence.
Which leads to them believing everyone who believes something scientifically incorrect is stupid, or at least less intelligence than they are.
THIS is elitist skepticism, in my opinion.
I experienced it many, many times at the TAM London conferences in 2009 and 2010. More so in 2010. There would be a statement from the stage about how stupid religious people are, or how people are stupid for not knowing this scientific fact, and the audience would erupt in applause and cheering. It made me feel very uncomfortable. Same with my brother and sister-in-law, who attended one and two of the events respectfully.
The truth of the matter, as I see it, is that fact that you are a skeptic has nothing to do with your own intelligence. Instead it has everything to do with circumstances of your birth, your upbringing, and the society in which you live.
If this wasn't the case, we could look at the most incredible minds throughout history, and they'd all be atheists and skeptics.
How about Isaac Newton? Oops. Was totally into alchemy and all kinds of batshit crazy stuff, as well as being a Christian. Same with every other intelligent person up until the Enlightenment.
Also, atheists have no problem saying "If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd probably believe in Allah, if you were born in Texas you'd probably believe in Jesus." Which is totally true. This isn't a statement about the mental capacity of any religious person, just the admission that people are shaped by their surroundings.
So why do skeptics think they are any different?
I was brought up in a hardcore Christian home, and I'm now an atheist and a skeptic. Is it my intelligence that took me down that path? I'd say no, just a great many incidences and coincidences along the way. My Christian upbringing probably contributed more to me being a skeptic now than other people's secular upbringing, to the point where they've thought as much about the existence of god as the efficacy of Homeopathy. As in, not at all.
I have an identical twin brother who also attended TAM London in 2009 and 2010. He was also brought up in a Christian home, of course, and is now probably more hardcore atheist than I am. Did we reach the same beliefs because we are both as intelligent as each other? Well, no. It could be said that I'm objectively more intelligent than he is, as measured by grades at school. But even our grades at school had more to do with our only very slightly different life experiences up until age 16.
We took different paths to our skeptical mindset, at different paces, but in each case it took a repeated exposure to the skeptical mindset of others, each time totally outside of our control. After a time, by applying skeptical tools we'd picked up to our own beliefs, we came to the same kinds of conclusions. This had nothing to do with our intelligence levels, and way more to do with the fact that skepticism itself works. We didn't invent it, we only slowly, and by accident, learnt it.
So what next?
Thinking other people are stupid because they are religious or not skeptical is totally misguided. It becomes worrying when these elitist skeptics think they should also be elite skeptics, or worse yet, elite members of society in general.
You may be CORRECT about the topics of which you are skeptical, but that doesn't mean the "stupid" people should be sneered at and then ignored. They should, instead or at least, be educated.
As a final argument, I'd like to bring up the parallels between elitist skeptics and Randian thinkers on economics.
"I got to where I am today, financially, due to my own skills, intelligence, and hard work! I am the 53%! Pull yourself up by your boot straps!"
The common rebuttal is something on the lines of "Really? You didn't rely on your parents? Your schooling? The circumstances of your birth? Your parents' economic standing? Your gender? The colour of your skin? Your reliance on the wider society to provide the safe environment in which you can flourish?"
Soon the claims that someone, anyone, got to their current financial position due to their own abilities falls flat. It involves long chains of coincidence, circumstances outside of the person's control, and the actions of other people. All these things combine to bring any single person to any point in their life. There is no fate, there is no destiny, there is no god in the machine. If you are a hardcore skeptic, you won't believe in true free will, only in the illusion of free will. You are only the culmination of matter and energy playing itself out in the universe.
Really.
"I'm a skeptic, and have all the right answers, due to my own skills, intelligence, and hard work! I have the same religious beliefs as all these Nobel Prize winning scientists! If you weren't so stupid, you'd be just like me!"
My rebuttal is exactly the same as before. "Really? You didn't rely on your parents? Your schooling? The circumstances of your birth? Your parents' economic standing? Your gender? The colour of your skin? Your reliance on the wider society to provide the safe environment in which you can flourish?"
Yes, even skin gender and colour. How many black women at TAM London in 2010? Maybe there was one, but she was hidden among the sea of caucasian men. Then again, only middle-to-upper-class people could afford the money and time to attend TAM, and we all know that white men, aged 25-40, only reach that position through their own intelligence and hard work. Ho hum.
To conclude: Some people DO rely solely on their outstanding mental capacity to independently formulate the principles of science and skeptical thought. Good on them. But these people are few and far between. I'm not asking you to defend the ancient philosophers' intelligence compared to the general population. It's obvious they had the chops to rise above the rest, and have influenced world history since their times.
No, I'm asking you to defend your OWN intelligence compared to the general population. Is knowing the truth about some subjects, and knowing a method of thought to reach true conclusions on other subjects, reason enough to sneer at everyone else?
In 10-ish words or more, what does DevilUknow think you are saying there?
People are blind to their own ignorance and uncritical of their own drives and beliefs and assume that people who disagree with them do so out of evil intent or stupidity and treat them as such.
Religious fanatics are more or less defined by this basic human trait. Skeptics, on the other hand, are supposed to START with this assumption about themselves and, instead of relying on gut feelings and intuition (which typically happen to coincide with what we either want to believe or are afraid might be true), relies on a process of unbiased inquiry and observation (aka science) to reveal what is true and what isn't and then uses that evidence to convince others and move forward (to varying degrees of success).
The Elite Skeptic is someone who is very well versed in science and is worthy of being deferred to within the areas of their expertise; they know what they are talking about and are perfectly able to back up their claims (assuming you can understand them).
The Elitist Skeptic, on the other hand, sinks back into their own uncritical ignorance and mistakes their own fanaticism for scientific rigor (and holds conventions like TAM). The biggest problem is all of the knowledge accumulated by centuries of scientist endeavor are unknowable to any one person. As a result, someone who is an Elite Skeptic in one field can be an Elitist Skeptic in another. The much simpler and consistent ideologies of religion that feel threatened when some scientific discovery infringes on their turf then feels totally justified in dismissing the arguments of the Elite Skeptics by citing the ignorance and hypocrisy of the Elitist Skeptic (especially when they are the same person).
Richard Dawkins is an Elite Skeptic when it comes to evolutionary biology. He also has a tendency to be a sexist and and an ignorant Islamophobe (doing things like confusing old Arab customs with Islamic practices vis-a-vis female genital mutilation) . As a result, creationists feel justified in rejecting what he says about evolution since he displays ignorance of Islam.
"I don't know how to space properly." Seriously Luke, don't be afraid to have paragraphs longer than 3 lines.
This is a much narrower column of text on my blog
tl;dr (maybe I will later, but it's after midnight here) In 10 words or less, what were you saying there?
This is based upon my previous posts in this very thread. There isn't a lot of new stuff to read, just a longer explanation for people who didn't read the entire thread.
Comments
I didn't read the original article, but unless you've been in a room with 800 self declared sceptics, and also grown up attending jesus-camp style church conferences, you might have a hard time believing how similar they felt. To me. Personal anecdote only.
A really non-confrontational example of this is the recent OPERA experiment results from CERN. Some of my friends are physicists, many are engineers, even more of them have at least undergraduate physics courses behind them and at least a basic grasp of calculus. What do you suppose is the skeptic's response to this research should be?
Is it (a) assume the research is invalid, this is impossible - previous science says so...
or (b) apply occam's razor, the simplest possible result is that the research is most likely flawed in some way...
or (c) just as much as one should be skeptical of this research without further evidence, one must also be skeptical of immediately taking stance (a) or (b) until more evidence supports these views - or more evidence supports the OPERA experiment.
I've seen a solid mix of a's, b's, and c's. Some people have "skin in the game" on this, and they are equally mixed. I am a rather unconcerned outsider, and I fall into a (c) holding pattern. When I heard about such an unexpected result, I read into as much detail as I could looking for an obvious path to (a) or (b), but I didn't see any way to get there based on the level of detail that went into the research. I quickly hit my upper bound to gather more information without having to vastly expand my understanding of physics to make more progress. So I'm going to stay at (c) until I can be convinced one way or another.
I come down to the line of thinking that anything but applying the scientific method will end up in a quagmire. And I also accept that while the scientific method is essentially "the best tool we have for the job", it's still not a guarantee. There are things in play that we can't overcome... "the mind-body problem", "induction is still induction", "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics", "all we have is what we observe", etc.
One other random musing just for the sake of bringing it to the table since it's also on my mind.
Let's say you have two possible universes.
In universe (a), everything is governed by a series of principles. For any given state, these principles would dictate the effect of that state (everything that will happen from that state forward).
In universe (b), there are no principles, but rather an infinite and exhaustive list of states exists including all possibilities that can ever or will ever exist in that universe and the state that follows it.
Can a == b? That is, can you express a principled universe as an infinite and exhaustive list of states? Can you express an infinite and exhaustive list of states as a series (perhaps itself, infinitely long) of principles?
My inclination, coming from the view of a programmer who flips between "principle-like code" to exhaustive lists of data and back constantly, is yes. And this belief puts me in a weird place where I will always have the thought that everything we've observed could possibly "just so happen" to be that way rather than it being an elegant (in relative terms) list of rules/laws/theories/principles.
What I'm talking about is a speaker standing in front of a packed room of maybe 800 people, saying something along the lines of "We're all smart, and everyone who doesn't think like us are stupid" (though maybe not in those words) and receiving a round of applause or a big laugh. Not everyone was laughing at the stupid non-sceptics, or cheering on their own intelligence, but it was more than half. I didn't like how none of the "leaders" picked up on this or addressed it in any way.
If someone doesn't agree with you, it isn't because they are less intelligent. And if you are correct on a matter, it isn't because you are MORE intelligent. You're just lucky. Someone happened to tell you about critical thinking or science or scepticism at a time when you were open to the idea, and you've discovered it works for you. That is it. That is the only thing that sets you apart. Dumb luck. Circumstances outside of your control. Nothing more.
I found it similar to Randian thinkers who sneer at poor people. "They just need to work harder, and then they'll be rich like me!" Yeah, as though you got to where you are today by pure skill and hard work, and not the luck of your birth, upbringing, health, skin colour, economic standing, help from other people, use of government-controlled resources, etc, etc, etc. These sceptics seem to be saying "They just need to think harder, and then they'll come to the same conclusions as me!" Yeah, as though you got to your present mindset just by thinking hard, and not the luck of your birth, upbringing, health, economic standing, help from other people, skin colour, etc, etc, etc.
Some people then use their innate intelligence and thinking skills go further in some fields than others, of course. I'm not saying some people are not more intelligent than others, but non-scepticism does not equal lack of intelligence.
You are looking at the term elite as in "elite athlete" and in that way, you are right. An elite sceptic would indeed be the one to question everything, including everything they do or think. But I'm talking about "elitist sceptics" which is another topic entirely. I LIKE elite sceptics. They are the ones who make me question things I've not thought about before. I don't like elitist sceptics.
We do disagree though regarding skepticism of skepticism. I think its' a fundamental requirement of skepticism - that anything you grasp for will never be quite complete. It's a matter of making (and applying) the best possible assumptions - but you should also recognize that they are still inherently assumptions like others.
Edit: Actually one other thing your post made me think on was the indoctrination of certain thoughts. And your first reply to me parallels one of my problems with "poor skepticism" as I'm calling it here. If someone is only a skeptic because that is what they were taught while they had an "open mind" that was maleable... that's a poor reason to be a skeptic. If it is equally likely (or perhaps unequally, but a random chance, aka luck) that they could be bigotted in a different way... then are they really a skeptic? Or do they blindly believe a thing that makes them skeptical of all other things?
#Elite Skeptics, Elitist Skeptics, and me.
Many people get a lot of attention on the internet for saying or writing things like "Atheist and skeptics are just the same as religious people!"
They go on to say things like "Skeptics like to take down the beliefs of others, but they never question their own beliefs."
Near the end of the rant, you'll probably find accusations of elitism and arrogance.
Personally I think there is a confusion between the labels of "elite skeptics" and "elitist skeptics". There is some overlap between the groups, but from my own anecdotal evidence, not very much.
I have no problem with people who are not skeptical about every one of their beliefs. My problem is with those people who aren't skeptical of the reasons they THINK they are skeptical.
It's a tricky concept, but maybe I can explain.
Not everyone can be skeptical of everything. There are loads of areas where I don't think skeptically at all. This is the only way to get through my day, otherwise I'd never get anything done. I'd spend all the time investigating every tiny detail of every tiny truth claim, and never be able to have an awesome, albeit slightly random, life.
Who can really be that skeptical? Not us everyday people. And yet "skeptics" come under fire for NOT examining every single thing. And because we believe some things without question, and challenge a certain set of beliefs of others, we are called arrogant and elitist.
For that attention to detail we rely on elite skeptics. These can be professional scientists, or they can be trusted journalists or public figures who communicate the current state of scientific thought.
When Ben Goldacre says "Homeopathy is bullshit" I don't rush out to do my own tests on diluted water. I just take his word on it. There is a virtuous circle of trust among scientists and science writers that allows them to reach a consensus on certain topics.
Yay for the elite skeptics!
My problem is with elit*ist* skeptics, and I have a good working definition of the term.
First, let me state that I have no problems with any single belief or stance on any issue an elitist skeptic might talk about, or browbeat others about. The chances are they are 100% correct on the matter when held against the standards of modern science.
My only problem is the reason that they THINK they are skeptics, and are therefore scientifically right. The reason they believe they skeptics is their own intelligence.
Which leads to them believing everyone who believes something scientifically incorrect is stupid, or at least less intelligence than they are.
THIS is elitist skepticism, in my opinion.
I experienced it many, many times at the TAM London conferences in 2009 and 2010. More so in 2010. There would be a statement from the stage about how stupid religious people are, or how people are stupid for not knowing this scientific fact, and the audience would erupt in applause and cheering. It made me feel very uncomfortable. Same with my brother and sister-in-law, who attended one and two of the events respectfully.
The truth of the matter, as I see it, is that fact that you are a skeptic has nothing to do with your own intelligence. Instead it has everything to do with circumstances of your birth, your upbringing, and the society in which you live.
If this wasn't the case, we could look at the most incredible minds throughout history, and they'd all be atheists and skeptics.
How about Isaac Newton? Oops. Was totally into alchemy and all kinds of batshit crazy stuff, as well as being a Christian. Same with every other intelligent person up until the Enlightenment.
Also, atheists have no problem saying "If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd probably believe in Allah, if you were born in Texas you'd probably believe in Jesus." Which is totally true. This isn't a statement about the mental capacity of any religious person, just the admission that people are shaped by their surroundings.
So why do skeptics think they are any different?
I was brought up in a hardcore Christian home, and I'm now an atheist and a skeptic. Is it my intelligence that took me down that path? I'd say no, just a great many incidences and coincidences along the way. My Christian upbringing probably contributed more to me being a skeptic now than other people's secular upbringing, to the point where they've thought as much about the existence of god as the efficacy of Homeopathy. As in, not at all.
I have an identical twin brother who also attended TAM London in 2009 and 2010. He was also brought up in a Christian home, of course, and is now probably more hardcore atheist than I am. Did we reach the same beliefs because we are both as intelligent as each other? Well, no. It could be said that I'm objectively more intelligent than he is, as measured by grades at school. But even our grades at school had more to do with our only very slightly different life experiences up until age 16.
We took different paths to our skeptical mindset, at different paces, but in each case it took a repeated exposure to the skeptical mindset of others, each time totally outside of our control. After a time, by applying skeptical tools we'd picked up to our own beliefs, we came to the same kinds of conclusions. This had nothing to do with our intelligence levels, and way more to do with the fact that skepticism itself works. We didn't invent it, we only slowly, and by accident, learnt it.
So what next?
Thinking other people are stupid because they are religious or not skeptical is totally misguided. It becomes worrying when these elitist skeptics think they should also be elite skeptics, or worse yet, elite members of society in general.
You may be CORRECT about the topics of which you are skeptical, but that doesn't mean the "stupid" people should be sneered at and then ignored. They should, instead or at least, be educated.
As a final argument, I'd like to bring up the parallels between elitist skeptics and Randian thinkers on economics.
"I got to where I am today, financially, due to my own skills, intelligence, and hard work! I am the 53%! Pull yourself up by your boot straps!"
The common rebuttal is something on the lines of "Really? You didn't rely on your parents? Your schooling? The circumstances of your birth? Your parents' economic standing? Your gender? The colour of your skin? Your reliance on the wider society to provide the safe environment in which you can flourish?"
Soon the claims that someone, anyone, got to their current financial position due to their own abilities falls flat. It involves long chains of coincidence, circumstances outside of the person's control, and the actions of other people. All these things combine to bring any single person to any point in their life. There is no fate, there is no destiny, there is no god in the machine. If you are a hardcore skeptic, you won't believe in true free will, only in the illusion of free will. You are only the culmination of matter and energy playing itself out in the universe.
Really.
"I'm a skeptic, and have all the right answers, due to my own skills, intelligence, and hard work! I have the same religious beliefs as all these Nobel Prize winning scientists! If you weren't so stupid, you'd be just like me!"
My rebuttal is exactly the same as before. "Really? You didn't rely on your parents? Your schooling? The circumstances of your birth? Your parents' economic standing? Your gender? The colour of your skin? Your reliance on the wider society to provide the safe environment in which you can flourish?"
Yes, even skin gender and colour. How many black women at TAM London in 2010? Maybe there was one, but she was hidden among the sea of caucasian men. Then again, only middle-to-upper-class people could afford the money and time to attend TAM, and we all know that white men, aged 25-40, only reach that position through their own intelligence and hard work. Ho hum.
To conclude: Some people DO rely solely on their outstanding mental capacity to independently formulate the principles of science and skeptical thought. Good on them. But these people are few and far between. I'm not asking you to defend the ancient philosophers' intelligence compared to the general population. It's obvious they had the chops to rise above the rest, and have influenced world history since their times.
No, I'm asking you to defend your OWN intelligence compared to the general population. Is knowing the truth about some subjects, and knowing a method of thought to reach true conclusions on other subjects, reason enough to sneer at everyone else?
I think not.
In 10 words or less, what were you saying there?
Religious fanatics are more or less defined by this basic human trait. Skeptics, on the other hand, are supposed to START with this assumption about themselves and, instead of relying on gut feelings and intuition (which typically happen to coincide with what we either want to believe or are afraid might be true), relies on a process of unbiased inquiry and observation (aka science) to reveal what is true and what isn't and then uses that evidence to convince others and move forward (to varying degrees of success).
The Elite Skeptic is someone who is very well versed in science and is worthy of being deferred to within the areas of their expertise; they know what they are talking about and are perfectly able to back up their claims (assuming you can understand them).
The Elitist Skeptic, on the other hand, sinks back into their own uncritical ignorance and mistakes their own fanaticism for scientific rigor (and holds conventions like TAM). The biggest problem is all of the knowledge accumulated by centuries of scientist endeavor are unknowable to any one person. As a result, someone who is an Elite Skeptic in one field can be an Elitist Skeptic in another. The much simpler and consistent ideologies of religion that feel threatened when some scientific discovery infringes on their turf then feels totally justified in dismissing the arguments of the Elite Skeptics by citing the ignorance and hypocrisy of the Elitist Skeptic (especially when they are the same person).
Richard Dawkins is an Elite Skeptic when it comes to evolutionary biology. He also has a tendency to be a sexist and and an ignorant Islamophobe (doing things like confusing old Arab customs with Islamic practices vis-a-vis female genital mutilation) . As a result, creationists feel justified in rejecting what he says about evolution since he displays ignorance of Islam.