Why Skeptivism Should Do Good

I was very disappointed with Rebbecca Watson's response to my question at TAMOz which wrapped up the Activism session. Rebbecca said that the Salvos closed down soup kitchens because they had gay volunteers (more on that later) and that the Salvos were not in fact a good organisation. This, precisely, was my point. The Salvos are NOT a good group. They are a religion whose members do some good, but those deeds are done to promote their church as a group for good. They have been successful. People in Australia love the Salvos, and even I am a fan (or was until they bad mouthed Tim Minchin's beautiful song on the Myer Xmas CD.

The point is, the Salvos may be bad, but their deeds make them look good. Skeptics generally are good, but they are seen as bad, and part of the reason is that their good deeds are either not seen, or seen as negatives. We tell people what not to do, we tell people they are wrong, we want this stopped and that outlawed. We set ourselves up as the naysayers, and what do we offer as tangible evidence in the fleeting gaze of the public eye that we are actually doing good?

I argue that doing good for good's sake is a simple and effective way to demonstrate that we are, in fact, good people, doing good work. We shouldn't ask how to increase skepticism, or how to make our complaints seem polite. For some part of our time together we should just do good.

There is no reason why the good can't be positive for the cause, but it is important it be two things:
1. Genuinely good work
2. Done with no expectation of a change in the recipient's attitude.

I have heard it argued that this would be the same as churches who propagate their belief through charity, and it would be unethical to copy churches. I counter with two facts - good work is good for people, and what is wrong with promoting the ideas we believe are so important? We would not force our ideas onto anyone - they would be free to ignore us, thank us or join us on their own. We would not use the gains from these works to build meeting halls or pay preachers, or generate tax-free income for our group. We would do good work. We would enjoy the benefit of the good feelings that come form doing good work. Others would benefit from our charity. The politics comes a distant second, and if we are able to point to this group as a way that Skeptics have done good for the community, then that is a positive we can use to answer critics who see us as emotionless, doubt-seeding naysayers.

Skeptic has negative connotations. Part of the reason for that is that Skeptics don't do very much other than be skeptical. That's fine for individuals, but as a group our goal is to share our beliefs and make a positive impact in the lives of skeptics. We can do that and be positive for the wider community. Not doing it simply because it would look like something a church would do is short-sighted, selfish and hypocritical. We argue that decisions should be based on rational thought and evidence, and I argue that there is plenty of evidence to support that doing good work is a good thing to do.