Point of Inquiry

Greg Craven is a high school science teacher and climate change activist from Oregon. His new book is What's the Worst That Could Happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate. In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Greg Craven discusses the youtube video on global warming he created that now has nearly 8 million views. He talks about applying game theory to the "decision paralysis" people have surrounding the global warming debate, using a "decision grid." He explores misunderstandings most people have about the nature of science, and whether or not science can provide certainty about important questions facing society. He emphasizes as a starting point the acknowledgement, whether one is a skeptic of global warming or a "panicked activist," that one could be wrong about global warming. He argues that the evidence is not what is most important in the climate change debate, because each side has "evidence" to support its conclusions. He talks about "confirmation bias," and how it makes it difficult to find out the truth about global warming. He explains why it is less important to personally live "green," and why others kinds of social environmentalist activism is more important. He details why America's mobilization in World War II and also modern social networking on the internet are the only two things that give him hope regarding responsibly responding to climate change.

J.D. Trout is a professor of philosophy at Loyola University Chicago, and an adjunct professor at the Parmly Sensory Sciences Institute. He writes on the nature of scientific and intellectual progress, as well as on the contribution that social science can make to human well-being. He is the author of Measuring the Intentional World, and co-author of Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment. His most recent book is The Empathy Gap: Building Bridges to the Good Life and the Good Society. In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, J. D. Trout argues for using science to engineer society in ways that help people overcome their natural cognitive biases. He notes that whether or not we know it, we are always participants in the social experiments, often experiments conducted by unqualified elected officials. He details a number of small experiments that have public policy implications, such as using social science to trick people into keeping hospitals more germ-free, public bathrooms cleaner, and prescriptions from being filled erroneously. He explores the tensions between the unfettered free market and governmental regulation in this regard, and argues that in many cases it is an empirical question as to whether the free market can solve a particular problem. He discusses the anti-vax movement, and the best strategies to adopt in order to overcome suspicions public health measures such as widespread vaccination programs. He argues that the evidence is overwhelming that the general public lacks the cognitive resources to consistently make good decisions about its well-being, and he defends this view from charges that it is "Big Brother." He makes a distinction between the public making good decisions about what priorities to pursue, and good decisions about the means to pursue them. He tells why he thinks the U.S. Government should create something like a House Committee on Social Science, and how such a Committee would offer an alternative to failed "Blue Ribbon" panels such as the Meese Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. He contends that the United States Government should have tax-payer funded "well being programs," similar to countries in Europe, as a public health measure (because happy people are healthier people). He he explains how the Obama Administration is allied with such proposals to use science to better engineer society, because Obama is an "Enlightenment President," who believes in the power of science to transform society for the better. And he describes what science activists can do to advance such an agenda.

J.D. Trout is a professor of philosophy at Loyola University Chicago, and an adjunct professor at the Parmly Sensory Sciences Institute. He writes on the nature of scientific and intellectual progress, as well as on the contribution that social science can make to human well-being. He is the author of Measuring the Intentional World, and co-author of Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment. His most recent book is The Empathy Gap: Building Bridges to the Good Life and the Good Society. In this interview with D.J. Grothe, J. D Trout draws distinctions between empathy and sympathy. He talks about the "empathy gap," which is a set of natural, evolved limits on empathy, and how these limits negatively affect society, such as difficulties people experience when trying to empathize with others who are religiously, culturally or psychologically different from themselves. He talks about how the results of empathy can actually be crippling for an individual. He talks about how we should use new research in the social sciences to overcome the empathy gap. He explores if new social science questions basic capitalistic assumptions of the American Dream and also philosophical concepts, such as free-will. He explains how new social science research supports the Enlightenment outlook. He details a number of well-researched cognitive biases that lead people to make bad decisions, such as the base-rate effect, overconfidence bias, the omission bias, the hindsight bias, and the availability bias, among others. He shares his skepticism that education about cognitive biases, or the adoption of "inside strategies," can diminish the negative effect of such biases. He proposes that society adopt "outside strategies," which is the government or institutions adopting policies and strategies to help the public overcome their cognitive biases, because he argues individuals will not be very successful on their own in counteracting them. And he explores to what extent these kind of institutional or governmental strategies and policies are "social engineering."

Jeff Sharlet is a contributing editor for Harper's and Rolling Stone, and a visiting research scholar at New York University's Center for Religion and Media, where he has taught journalism and religious studies. He is the coauther, with Peter Manseau, of Killing the Buddha, and editor of TheRevealer.org. His latest book, a New York Times bestseller, is The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. In this in-depth interview with D.J. Grothe, Jeff Sharlet explains why secularists should not assume that just because there is a Democrat in the White House it follows that the religious fundamentalists' power has waned. He talks about how a secretive Christian political organization called The Family is founded in a doctrine of "Biblical Capitalism" and the "totalitarianism of Christ" that draws no distinction between religion, economics and politics and he recounts its origins in a supposed revelation from God that attacked organized labor and stated that Christianity has historically been overly focused on the poor, the weak and the suffering. He draws distinctions between the "pulpit pounders and the Bible thumpers" and "the fundamentalist elite," which is exemplified by The Family, which is comprised almost entirely of well-educated, affluent political and business leaders. He describes how The Family organizes Congressman into "private prayer cells," and runs the C Street House, which was made famous through the political sex scandals of Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford. He contrasts organizations like the Heritage Foundation and Christian leaders such as James Dobson and Pat Robertson with The Family, arguing that at least they are open with their agenda, as opposed to the Family, which unapologetically encourages secrecy by working to be "an invisible organization." He describes how The Family's relationship with the powerful is different than groups like Focus on the Family, and explains how their lack of rigid partisan or religious orthodoxy allows them to be more effective. He argues that The Family literally works to subvert democracy, and how the organization celebrates Hitler, Mao and Stalin as being among the few men the 20th Century who actually "understood the New Testament." He reports that The Family acts consistently as an intermediary between US Politicians and military leaders and businessman on the one hand, and overseas dictators such as the Somali dictator Siyad Barre, Ugandan dictator Museveni, and Indonesia dictator Suharto on the other hand, often with disastrous consequences. He details the history and importance of the National Prayer Breakfast to The Family's agenda. He describes ways that writing his expose has resulted in a backlash against him. He lists ways that secularists and progressives can work to reduce the influence of The Family in government. And he reveals a number of elected officials in high office who have ties to The Family, including Republican United States Senators Chuck Grassley, John Ensign, Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, Sam Brownback, and Lindsey Graham; Democratic United States Senator Mark Pryor; South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Former United States Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Ed Meese; and Democratic Congressmen Mike McIntyre and Bart Stupak, among others.

William Little is a freelance journalist based in London, England. He has written for the Saturday Telegraph magazine, Weekend Telegraph, the Guardian, The Times and the Financial Times. He has also worked for Arena, Esquire and Cosmopolitan, and contributed articles to the Independent, the Daily Express and the Big Issue, among many others. His recent book is The Psychic Tourist: A Voyage into the Curious World of Predicting the Future. In this interview with D.J. Grothe, William Little recounts his experiences researching The Psychic Tourist, including his seminar with Sylvia Browne, meetings with UK mentalist Derren Brown, scientists Richard Dawkins and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Jospehson, attending a psychic college, and his sister's star chart predicting her death. He reveals his motivations writing the book, and talks about how his journalistic approach is different than the approach of some academic skeptics who write for more of an already skeptical audience. He explores what it might say about society if there is such widespread belief in psychics when there is so little evidence to support psychic claims. He contrasts the harm psychics do with how they may help people. He explains why he thinks of psychic belief as "disorganized religion." And he talks about the skeptics he met who weren't cold-hearted, but instead were interested in helping people. Also in this episode, Jim Underdown recounts his experiences with famous psychics making bad guesses, including John Edward and James Van Praagh.

Paul Kurtz is founder and chair emeritus of the Center for Inquiry and founder of a number of other organizations. A Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, chairman of the Committee for the Skeptical Inquiry, the Council for Secular Humanism, and Prometheus Books. He is the author or editor of almost fifty books, including The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge. Throughout the last four decades, Kurtz has been a leading defender of science and reason against the prevailing cults of irrationality in our society, and has been interviewed widely in the media on a wide range of subjects, including alternative medicine and communication with the dead, to the historicity of Jesus and parapsychology. In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Paul Kurtz argues against associating secular humanism with atheism and explains whether or not he himself is an atheist. He reviews the history of the word "agnostic," and shows how it "is not a creed but a method." He explains why he is skeptical of the claims of theism. He denies that atheism is a necessary condition of secular humanism. He describes what he considers as the third "categorical imperative." He explains why he considers some atheist activists to be "fundamentalist atheists," arguing that their anti-religious stance stems from "being bruised" by religion. He talks about why he is against CFI's support of the International Blasphemy Day, and why it is "blasphemous to the whole humanist outlook" and is contrary to the "civic virtues of democracy."

Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology and is also a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute. His books include Answering the New Atheism and Ten Books That Screwed Up The World. His Newest is The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin. In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Dr. Benjamin Wiker talks about his book The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin. He argues that Darwinism is a distortion of evolution, and based on the secular and atheistic influence of the "radical Enlightenment." He shares his skepticism of other historians' accounts of Darwin's anguish over the implications of his views for religious belief. He contends that Darwin was a third-generation religious skeptic, and that he had an atheistic agenda from early in his life. He relates Alfred Russell Wallace's critiques of Darwin's atheistic account of evolution by natural selection, and defends Wallace from the charges of Spiritualism. He compares evolutionists who accept natural selection with neurologists who think neuroscience may or will entirely account for the human self (without a soul), and suggests both views are based on ideology. He explains his motivations to criticize Darwin based on what he argues are the immoral effects of Darwinism in society. He links Nazism, Social Darwinism and eugenics to Darwinism. He talks about abortion in the context of the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. He discusses the "is-ought problem" in philosophy, and the "naturalistic fallacy." He criticizes Darwin's accounts of how human morality may have evolved. And he argues against creationists who reject evolution, even while he himself attacks "evolution by natural selection."

Ronald A. Lindsay is a bioethicist, lawyer, and chief executive officer of the Center for Inquiry. For many years he practiced law in Washington, DC, and was an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and American University, where he taught jurisprudence and philosophy courses. His new book is Future Bioethics: Overcoming Taboos, Myths, and Dogmas. In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Ron Lindsay describes CFI's Campaign for Free Expression, and its goals to defend free speech and oppose even self-censorship. He details the pleaseblock.us website, which is a component of the campaign, along with announcing a cartoon contest in honor of the Danish Muslim cartoon controversy of a few years back. He explores the relationship between free expression and free inquiry. He examines the recent controversy surrounding the Yale-published book on the Muslim Cartoon issue, and why the book's editors chose not to include the cartoons in the book. He talks about CFI's sponsorship of International Blasphemy Day, and its aims, which include highlighting blasphemy laws around the world, some of which carry life-sentences or the death penalty. He argues against recent United Nations resolutions against the defamation of religions. He shares details of CFI's "Blasphemy Contest." He defends the strategic utility of organizing people to blaspheme, despite the fact that it may be offensive. And he lists some of the ways listeners can get involved celebrating Blasphemy Day at various Centers for Inquiry throughout North America and around the world.

Mark S. Blumberg is Professor and Starch Faculty Fellow at the University of Iowa. His books include The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Behavioral Neuroscience, Body Heat: Temperature and Life on Earth, and Basic Instinct: The Genesis of Behavior. He is Editor-in-Chief of the journal Behavioral Neuroscience, and President of the International Society for Developmental Psychobiology. His newest book is Freaks of Nature: What Anomalies Tell Us About Development and Evolution. In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Mark Blumberg describes how he became interested in "freaks of nature" as a way to question prevailing concepts within biology regarding genes, instincts, and pre-formed abilities. He talks about why he sees genetic determinism as "action at a distance thinking," and why he thinks it is similar to creationist views, and describes both as "magical ways of thinking about nature." He explains epigenetics. He describes how certain non-genetic factors that shape behavior may be inherited from one generation to the next. He discusses "sexual freaks" and sexual ambiguity in nature, and shows how in many ways, it is the norm in nature. He predicts the extinction of creationist thinking, and talks about how freaks of nature are a missed opportunity for those science advocates battling intelligent design and creationism, even as he also criticizes belief in "evolution's design" and "magical genes." He contrasts his views with those of evolutionary psychology as regards brain development. And he responds to notable critics of his views, such as Jerry Coyne.

Zachary Shore is Associate Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, and a Senior Fellow at the Institute of European Studies, University of California, Berkeley. He previously served on the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. Department of State. He is the author of What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy, and Breeding Bin Ladens: America, Islam, and the Future of Europe. His most recent book is Blunder: Why Smart People Make Bad Decisions. In this interview with D.J. Grothe, Zachary Shore talks about decision making, both at the personal and international level, and shares reasons even smart people make bad decisions. He describes what the field of history uniquely reveals about the tools needed to avoid decision-making blunders. He details the many ways that people fall into "cognition traps," including "exposure anxiety," "causefusion," "flatview," and "static cling," drawing from examples from individuals, international politics and statecraft, and corporate America. He identifies the various rigid mindsets that cause the cognition traps. And he suggests solutions to avoid blunders in thinking, including increasing one's empathy, imagination, and flexibility.