JamesDillon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,631
Although I am an atheist and a skeptic, I was uncomfortable with the direction of this panel discussion and Mr. Randi's conclusion that a skeptic cannot believe in God.
I had always thought that "skeptic" is a methodological, rather than content-based, label. Dictionary.com defines the term as "One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions." As used by the JREF, the Skeptics Society, or others in the movement, I understood the term to roughly mean "an individual who applies critical thinking skills (or the scientific method) to all claims and insists on a preponderance of empirical evidence in favor of a proposition before adopting a belief in that proposition." This point is closely related to Dr. Shermer's "science as a verb" discussion, and it seems to me to provide a vital distinction between science and skepticism on one hand, which presume no ultimate conclusions but instead define themselves by the methodology that they apply in pursuit of truth, and religion on the other, which presumes a set of specific "truths" handed down from on high, and proceeds to attempt to justify those truths by reference to empirical observations. Personally, I would resist the urge to define skepticism as a content-specific belief (e.g., "A skeptic must believe that UFOs, Bigfoot, and God do not exist, and that Darwin's theory of biological evolution by natural selection is true."), because that would set skepticism at odds with science, in which no proposition is (or should be) ever so well-established that it is not open to refutation by new evidence.
In light of all this, I can't understand how the question posed to the panel is even intelligible. In theory, can't a skeptic believe in anything at all for which s/he finds sufficient empirical evidence? An individual could certainly apply skeptical reasoning to, say, a purported videotape of Bigfoot or a UFO, and come to the (perhaps erroneous) conclusion that the tape is genuine, thereby adopting a belief in the existence of Bigfoot/UFOs that seems to me to be well founded in the skeptical perspective. We may well want to dispute the individual's interpretation of the evidence or point out some error in reasoning, but if the skeptical methodology is applied, does an error in judgment preclude one's claim to being called a skeptic? Darwin and Einstein, for example, both made claims that subsequent research has shown to be erroneous, but would anyone argue that they are not entitled to be called "scientists" as a result of those errors?
Perhaps the question was poorly phrased, and what should have been asked was, "Can a *good* skeptic believe in God?" But, doesn't the answer to that question collapse into the question of whether sufficient empirical evidence for God exists, which the moderator at one point disclaimed?
Responses welcome.
James
I had always thought that "skeptic" is a methodological, rather than content-based, label. Dictionary.com defines the term as "One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions." As used by the JREF, the Skeptics Society, or others in the movement, I understood the term to roughly mean "an individual who applies critical thinking skills (or the scientific method) to all claims and insists on a preponderance of empirical evidence in favor of a proposition before adopting a belief in that proposition." This point is closely related to Dr. Shermer's "science as a verb" discussion, and it seems to me to provide a vital distinction between science and skepticism on one hand, which presume no ultimate conclusions but instead define themselves by the methodology that they apply in pursuit of truth, and religion on the other, which presumes a set of specific "truths" handed down from on high, and proceeds to attempt to justify those truths by reference to empirical observations. Personally, I would resist the urge to define skepticism as a content-specific belief (e.g., "A skeptic must believe that UFOs, Bigfoot, and God do not exist, and that Darwin's theory of biological evolution by natural selection is true."), because that would set skepticism at odds with science, in which no proposition is (or should be) ever so well-established that it is not open to refutation by new evidence.
In light of all this, I can't understand how the question posed to the panel is even intelligible. In theory, can't a skeptic believe in anything at all for which s/he finds sufficient empirical evidence? An individual could certainly apply skeptical reasoning to, say, a purported videotape of Bigfoot or a UFO, and come to the (perhaps erroneous) conclusion that the tape is genuine, thereby adopting a belief in the existence of Bigfoot/UFOs that seems to me to be well founded in the skeptical perspective. We may well want to dispute the individual's interpretation of the evidence or point out some error in reasoning, but if the skeptical methodology is applied, does an error in judgment preclude one's claim to being called a skeptic? Darwin and Einstein, for example, both made claims that subsequent research has shown to be erroneous, but would anyone argue that they are not entitled to be called "scientists" as a result of those errors?
Perhaps the question was poorly phrased, and what should have been asked was, "Can a *good* skeptic believe in God?" But, doesn't the answer to that question collapse into the question of whether sufficient empirical evidence for God exists, which the moderator at one point disclaimed?
Responses welcome.
James
)