All have espoused beliefs they claim are rooted in fact and have a rational justification, but actually are motivated by ideology or emotion.



Orly Taitz - Self-described as a lawyer, dentist, and real estate agent (!), she is the public face of the "birther" campaign in the United States, a laughable attempt to "prove" with hard evidence that Barack Obama was not a natural-born American and thus is not qualified to serve as President.





Ken Ham - A tireless promoter of Young Earth creationism, Ham co-founded the Creation Science Foundation in Australia in 1979, and now runs the wildly successful Creation "Museum" in Petersburg, Kentucky, USA.





Eliezer Yudkowsky - An autodidact who did not attend high school and who has no formal education in artificial intelligence, Yudkowsky has nonetheless achieved a substantial (some might say Messianic) following as co-founder and intellectual leader of the Singularity Institute. His commitment to the concept of "Friendly AI" and to the desire to bring about the Singularity as soon as possible, not to mention his libertarian leanings, have made him popular among a certain segment of transhumanists.



Max More - The former Max O'Connor began the now-defunct Extropy Institute in 1990, championed technocratic libertarian ideals for many years, and now has fallen into the unfortunate role of opposing the hard science that underlies concerns about climate change.





So, we have birtherism, creationism, singularitarianism, and climate science denialism. In each case, arguments are marshaled that seem to resemble scientific or legal reasoning but that end up as speculative assertions intended to support fanciful, ideological, or faith-based positions. No doubt some who subscribe to each of those schools of thought would object to being lumped in with the others; they'd loudly proclaim that while the other beliefs may be misguided, theirs is not. I've placed them together deliberately, though, because I think they reveal a pattern: a dangerous, insidious compartmentalization of rationality.

Standing up in the court of public opinion armed with fancy-looking charts and with quotes from "authorities," the poseur assumes the role of a sophisticated deliberator, but the outside image is only a shell. Under the surface, deeper non-rational impulses drive them. It's true that well-ordered reason is sometimes in evidence, at least with some of these offenders, but the problem is that when facts and reason lead away from their pre-ordained conclusions, they readily jettison rationality in favor of orthodoxy.

Was Barack Obama born in Hawaii in 1961? Of course he was, but by raising a smokescreen of doubt maybe we can disrupt his agenda.

Was the Earth created in its present form by God six thousand years ago? Obviously not, but by jiggering the facts a little bit we can make it appear plausible to the ignorant and gain control over them.

Will a friendly machine soon reshape human society into Utopia? It seems highly doubtful, but since we'd like it to be so, let's develop an argument of apparent certainty.

Is all the evidence of anthropogenic global warming pure bunk? No, I'm afraid it's not, but there is a lot of oil money, and even some ideological satisfaction, in making the case that it is.

Of the four, creationism and global warming denialism are the most directly anti-science, although both try to argue their points from a "logical" perspective. Singularitarianism is openly anti-politics (and implicitly libertarian) as well as quietly fearful of technological progress. Singularitarians have more in common with relinquishers like Bill Joy than they may realize; their essential thesis is that science run amok is dangerous and can be made safe only if held under tight control by an elite group. That belief stems from fear more than reason.

I'm acquainted with Eliezer and Max, personally, and I know them both to be highly intelligent. Thus it seems a mystery to me that they can shift so rapidly from one mode to another, from pursuit of scientific reason to assertion of unsubstantiated opinion without differentiating between them. I freely admit to possessing and expressing political or other opinions, and I acknowledge openly that at least some of what I believe about right and wrong is based on intuition as opposed to deduction, but I try to make those divisions plain and to separate my thinking with reason from my reasoning with emotion. What seems harmful to me about the activities of Max and Eliezer, or even worse examples such as Taitz and Ham, is that they appear unable -- or maybe unwilling -- to tell the difference.

I have the same complaint about scientists and other pundits who assert that there is no inherent conflict between science and traditional religions like Islam, Christianity, or Hinduism: their arguments simply don't meet the test of intellectual rigor. Sam Harris has done a much better job than I ever could of dismantling the accomodationists' claims, though, so I won't attempt to do so here, although I invite you to absorb his impeccable reasoning.

Finally, a request. If you support science and reason, if you appreciate all that technology and secular society have done to relieve suffering, promote freedom, and bring opportunity to many, then please stick with your rationality even when it takes you to uncomfortable places. Don't allow fear to overcome logic. Accept the facts and the truth even if they require you to change your opinions. In the long run, both you and the world we live in will be much better for it.