 Coming up next, Peter Bogosian is next. He's doing a talk called Authenticity. He is a philosophy professor at Portland State University. His forthcoming book is a pretty cool, titled book. It's going to be called A Manual for Creating Atheists. Interesting. Again, his talk is called Authenticity. His haiku is this. Authenticity. If you can learn to fake that, baby, you're all set. Please welcome Peter Bogosian. Thank you. About 15 years ago, I lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico. One day, I came back to my car and there was a note on the window. Very interested. I picked up the note and it said, you drive like a real asshole. I couldn't believe it. I was indignant. I was outraged. So I took the note and I threw it on the floor and I went on with my day, trying not to think about the note. It failed and I kept coming back to the idea that I was so discourteous. I noticed when I was driving that I was a little more aggressive than the people of New Mexico. At first, I attributed that to the fact that I'm from Boston, Massachusetts. Extra credit. In Boston, people are much more aggressive when they drive. But the more I drove, the more I came to the realization that, boy, I was really not a nice guy. I was kind of a jerk when I drove. So I took the note off the floor and I taped it onto my dashboard. The reason that I did that was because I wanted to remind myself of the type of person that I wanted to change into. And the reason that I'm telling you this story is because it fits with two themes of my talk tonight. Authenticity and my talk is about authenticity, but specifically it's about forthright speech and police revision and we need both. The theme of this year's amazing meeting is fighting the fakers. Tonight, I'll argue that fighting the fakers starts with authenticity. Fighting the fakers starts with fighting the fakery in yourself. I'll talk about two types of authenticity. The first and easiest to accomplish is forthright speech. Fourth right speech is clear, honest and direct and forthright speech matters. For too long, people have been afraid to speak clearly, honestly and directly. They've been afraid to say what they mean, particularly when it comes to superstition and religion. They're afraid to offend. They're afraid to hurt people's feelings. They're afraid of how they'll be perceived so they cower to dangerous ideas. They silence themselves. One consequence of this failure to be forthright in speech is the dangerous ideas flourish. They gain traction and multiply. Once this happens, fakery becomes entrenched and more difficult to eradicate. Only after fakery is removed can we focus on the truth. If everyone were authentic, we wouldn't have to figure out what others mean because everyone would say what they actually mean. And saying what we mean is essential because the only way to solve problems is by speaking clearly, honestly and directly. The second type of authenticity I'll discuss is much more difficult to achieve. It's being authentic with yourself. At its core, being authentic with yourself means being willing to revise your beliefs. This matters intensely because belief revision allows us to change our behaviors and solve our problems. If you're willing to revise your beliefs, then you'll always fight the faker in yourself. So tonight, I'll talk about authenticity, first in terms of forthright speech, and then in terms of a willingness to revise beliefs. I'll argue that authenticity must not only be how we get our message across, it must be one of our core messages. Finally, I'll conclude with three suggestions for how to speak and live more authentically. Authentic speech is forthright. Speaking authentically is honest, is speaking honestly and sincerely. It's frank, clear and direct. Historical examples of people who are forthright in their speech and punished as a result are Socrates and Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. Socrates was imprisoned as a direct consequence of his forthright speech. He could have escaped, but he chose not to. Socrates, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela were sincere. Better to be in jail than to be free but complicit. For them, freedom was a type of collaboration with injustice. Authenticity was a refusal to collaborate. Their speech and their actions were consistent with who they were as people. Contemporary skeptics and secularists who speak in a forthright, honest way include Richard Dawkins, Ayan Harsie Ali, Sam Harris, Michael Schermer, and James Randy. They are models of authenticity and among the most effective advocates for reason and secularism. While I don't agree with every one of their positions, I have tremendous respect for them. They're sincere. They take risks. And their forthright speech has made a tremendous difference in reversing the tide of reason. Dawkins, for example, on the role of religion on a planet society, Ali, about the status of women and religion, Harris, about faith, Schermer, about education and secularism, and Randy, about the need to unremittingly call out every manner of faker. I also want to note that they occasionally disagree with each other. Dawkins and Harris, for example, disagree over gun control. But the idea is that they have a rational framework from which they can disagree. They say exactly what they mean. They call people out and they respond when they're called out. They give a punch and take a punch. They're authentic. They're forthright. They fight thugs and fakers. One quality they have in common is that they speak truth in the face of danger. Ancient Greeks had a word for this. Parahesia. Parahesia is frankness, truth telling, speaking at risk in front of a hostile audience. It's speaking openly without ambiguity or concealment. Parahesia is boldness. It's when you speak with sincerity and not because you want to flatter someone or reap personal reward. It's frankness instead of persuasion. But speaking truth in the face of danger also has a moral component. You're attempting to communicate a flaw in thinking so that it may be prevented. Speaking truth in the face of danger is a duty. And it's often the only way to solve problems and to prevent dangerous ideas from spreading. Just as we have models for authentic speech, so too are their models for in authentic speech. American televangelist Joel Austin, whose grotesque sincerity deceives literally millions of people each week, uses hollow, zen sounding, feel good platitudes like, I believe God gives you the grace to do what you need to do. And you're right. When you focus on being a blessing, God makes sure you're always blessed in abundance. Austin is a particular concern because he markets his message of unreason under the banner of hope. He encourages people to barter the rationality for coin. Ultimately, they lose both. Austin and other fakers have become exceedingly wealthy as a result of their inauthenticity, savvy marketing in complete disregard for human well being. For Austin, insincerity is big business. We need to be forthright about the potential negative consequences of being forthright. Fourth right speech doesn't necessarily come with external reward. As I mentioned earlier, in some context, it can land you in jail or even get you killed for a heresy or blasphemy. There are also less dramatic consequences to forthright speech. For example, you may be accused of being an evangelical skeptic or an evangelical atheist. In my experience, what people mean by this is that you're speaking too clearly and in too plain language about facts and evidence. You're speaking too bluntly. You're not couching ideas with ambiguous words or specialized terms that few understand. And you're more concerned with the truth than with how others perceive you. As a side note, I have been accused of being an evangelical atheist. I even have a forthcoming book entitled A Manual for Creating Atheists. And to be clear, I have never tried to convert anyone. I've only paved the way for people to convert themselves. Another possible consequence of forthright speech is the accusation that you've offended people. But as long as you're engaging ideas and not attacking immutable characteristics of people like skin color, race, height, age, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, or any other unchangeable characteristic, this is what someone's offense should mean to you. Ideas do not deserve dignity. People deserve dignity. If it's not an immutable characteristic, if it's changeable, then it's fair game and subject to scrutiny. Beliefs are fair game. Religion is fair game. Faith is fair game. Claims about the world are fair game. Culture is fair game. Public policies are fair game. Don't buy into the idea that if someone's offended by your forthright speech, you need to silence yourself. So one negative consequence of speaking authentically and being accused of evangelical skepticism, and you'll find it interestingly, it's people who share your same conclusions, is that some people may become upset. Well, I personally don't consider this to be a problem. It becomes a problem when you care deeply about those you've upset. People you respect and love. When they're your children, or your coaches, or your friends. Nobody wants people they care about to be angry with them. Nobody wants people to hurt people they love. But these moments of authentic communication about things that matter are also opportunities to have the most meaningful and the most profound relationships in your life. People will know exactly who you are, and accept you are not. What they see is what they get. Aristotle wrote that the highest former friendship is between two virtuous people. Speak authentically, not merely to stop dangerous ideas from spreading, but for yourself and for those around you. Fourth right speech will forge relationships that matter. Relationships that are worth having. In my experience, authentic relationships have given my life more meaning and more fulfillment than anything. Much more, for example, than professional success. But fourth right authentic speech is not enough to fight the fakers. One could be an authentic racist, or an authentic sexist, or hold some on the repugnant, malignant belief. Fourth right speech does not guarantee truth, compassion, or kindness. For these, we need our other core values of skepticism and humanism. But we also need to be genuinely willing to revise our beliefs. Being genuinely open to revise your beliefs prevents us from slipping into dogmatism. It helps us to become more humble about what it is that we think we know. Being genuinely open to revise our beliefs is the only way that I know of to keep our delusions in check. To help fight the faker in yourself, I'll offer the following suggestion. Always have a sincere response to the question, what would it take for me to believe? In the realm of religion, for example, what would it take for you to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet? And what would it take for you to believe that the Dalai Lama reincarnates? And what would it take for you to believe, as Scientologists do, that we're thetans trapped in human bodies? In the realm of pseudoscience, it's much easier. What it would take for me to believe is that if someone passed the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge, if someone did pass a challenge, and actually we'll find out in a couple of hours if they do. And I actually sincerely hope that someone does, because then we can use that to move our understanding of that supernatural phenomenon. We can apply the tools of science to study that. But that's what it would take for me to change my mind. That's what it would take for me to believe. An external benefit of belief revision is that it's a modeling strategy that can help those who are trapped by pathological beliefs. Many religious fundamentalists are forthright and speak truth in the face of danger, but they are inauthentic because they lack the willingness to revise their beliefs. When those who don't share our skeptical values see that we are open to revising our beliefs and that we appreciate being shown reasoning, errors in our thinking, errors in our reasoning, it makes it much easier for them to change their beliefs. They'll become less threatened, less likely to adopt the defensive posture, and more likely to reconsider. If we're not willing to revise our beliefs, the floodgates are open to believe what we want to believe as opposed to where the evidence points. If we don't hold belief revision as a core value, or if we veer from it, everything will fall apart. We'll treat the value of authenticity for something we want to believe. We'll become victims of ideology. We'll become fakes. For example, many on the left, like American journalist Glenn Greenwald, are unwilling to admit that beliefs have consequences in terms of behavior, specifically that Muslim extremists are actually committing certain atrocities for very specific religious reasons. Greenwald is unshakable in his conviction that these actions are the consequences of U.S. foreign policy. Even after a suicide bomber's explicit admission that he was motivated by passages from the Quran, many on the left, mostly those in academia, will say things like, well, he didn't really mean that, or it's simply not the case that religion had anything to do with it, or you're a bigot. If we can't be honest about the danger of religious extremism, for example, we won't even be able to address the problem, let alone solve it. And the first step to solving any problem is to be honest about it. Similarly, if the debate is framed in such a way that an entire group of people is placed outside the bounds of civilized society, then it becomes prejudiced and extremism. That's exactly how many Fox News commentators and American activists like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller frame their arguments. Spencer and Geller have written entire books turning their ire upon Muslims and using the language of Western liberalism like free speech, hate speech, inequality to smear an entire group of people. They don't just attack ideas, they attack people. This is dishonest, disingenuous, and hateful. The easiest person to fool is yourself. Being willing to revise your beliefs helps you privilege reality over ideology and not cherry pick what you want to believe. Belief revision helps prevent us from becoming fakers by honestly considering the evidence wherever that may lead. If you're willing to revise your beliefs, you won't have to go through lifeline which is difficult and burdensome. You can have healthy relationships and relationships that work because they're not based on deceit. You won't have to struggle to figure out what your friends mean. You won't even have to struggle to figure out what you mean. You'll be able to solve problems. You'll be able to identify dangers. You won't be a fraud, a phony, a faker. If you're genuinely willing to revise your beliefs, you don't use people or get used people in a way that you've conspired to create. You're less likely to be an asshole. Authenticity is a way to treat yourself well. Authenticity is a way to treat others well. Authenticity, honesty, sincerity, being yourself and speaking clearly. There are ways to cut through the noise. There are ways to keep it real. And there are also ways to help us as a movement avoid dogma, gurus, politics, financial interests, and everything else that typically corrupts movements. Authenticity is an indispensable safeguard. In the Gorgias, Socrates says that it's better to be refuted than it is to refute. For Socrates, being refuted, learning, and thus casting off our certainty and dogmatism, is virtuous. As long as we hold belief revision as a value, we'll be less likely to fall into dogmatism, ideology, and arrogance. We'll be less likely to become fakes. Before I conclude, I'd like to offer three specific suggestions for speaking and living more authentically. If someone asked you a question and you don't know the answer, say, I don't know. For example, if somebody asked you about what came before the big bang or chelation therapy, the effects of that, and you don't know, just say, hey, I don't know. Don't pretend to know things you don't know. Be honest, readily admit your ignorance. If you don't know, say, I don't know. Don't be a fake. Don't apologize or mumble in the defense of reason. Don't turn it down to a baby talk. Apologize for something you said, only if you're genuinely sorry, not because it hurts someone's feelings or because it offended someone or because you were subjected to personal criticism or because you were bullied. Consider Ron Lindsey's apology for his opening remarks at the Women in Secularism Two Conference. Now I've never met Ron. I don't even know Ron. I've never spoken to him. But if he was sincere, he did the right thing by apologizing. But if he meant his remarks, then he should not have apologized. Be direct, be sincere, say what you mean, be forthright. Don't speak in obfuscated terms because you're too afraid to say what you think. Don't equivocate. Don't sugarcoat. Don't put on a front. Don't be a fake. And unless you're a physicist, you're specifically talking about the realm of the very, very, very small in the context of physics. Do not use the word quantum. Quantum healing, quantum consciousness, quantum spirituality, quantum understanding, quantum life force, quantum actions, quantum karma, quantum subjectivity, quantum infinity. No. Master Faker and New Age guru Deepak Chopra uses the word quantum to justify his own lucrative nonsense. It's a scientific word that's been misappropriated and used to make the speaker sound intelligent. Using the word quantum is a way to obfuscate. If you speak clearly, others will know what you mean. And you'll know what you mean. Speaking in unclear language is a type of self deception and fakery. It can help you hide from the fact that you don't understand or even believe what you're saying. This is particularly true in the age of the Internet. Young people will not respond to unclear language. Being candid and direct is the best way to get our message across. I'm specifically thinking about Penn Gillette. I think he serves as a model for that. Finally, be wary of labels. They make it hard to revise your beliefs. There are no religious people or non-religious people, atheism plus or non-Atheism plus people. These are alienating specious distinctions. There are only people, some of whom have dangerous ideas, some do not. My friend Matt Thornton, a reason activist, said to me, we fear honest blunt dialogue, but what we ought to fear are dangerous ideas because while blunt and honest dialogue may be offensive to some, dangerous ideas can be fatal to all of us. Reason and rationality have endurance. They don't evaporate the moment you get slugged and you will get slugged. Look around you at this conference, at the people in this hall tonight, the people in this room are hope. If all of us be clearly and sincerely and are genuinely willing to revise our beliefs, we can solve the problems we face, we can solve our shared problems. Fighting the fakers starts with authenticity. Fighting the fakers starts with you. Thank you.