• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can a Skeptic Believe in God? Responses to Panel Discussion

JamesDillon said:
Is this an unfair characterization of the argument? Am I missing some key point that inspired most of the room to rise to their feet in applause? If so, please enlighten me, because this seems to me to be a very simplistic argument appealing to emotional response that I find entirely unpersuasive.
Click to expand...

I would call that a fair summary of Hal's speech, but I don't think its intent was to persuade anyone to his way of thinking. Rather, I think it was intended to illustrate that a person could hold such beliefs while relying on rational thought in pretty much all other, non-religious areas of their life.

Then again, I think we already knew that.
 
I'll say what I said in another thread: If I have to behave in accordance with the model of a perfect critically-thinking skeptic, then both belief in god and smoking are enough to pull my skeptic badge.

~~ Paul
 
Alliebubs said:
I also attended Bidlack's talk and while I empathised with his situation and experiences, I felt that pulling on the heartstrings wasn't necessarily intelligently honest or logical. Again, I want to make clear that I was emotionally moved and touched by his story, but I didn't glean any evidence that would help me understand his position.
Click to expand...
Alliebubs, if his position is emotion-based, and you were moved and touched by his story, I think you may well understand his position. (or not; I do not claim to speak for Hal.) You may simply not be persuaded by his account.

There is a major difference in the effect of the emotional argument, depending on whether the pronoun is "he" or "I".
 
As an aside...I know that Hal has to have known that this sort of thread would arise after the talk. I admire him tremendously for speaking the way he did. Not everybody could do that, especially knowing their words would be dissected here afterward.

[/aside]
 
I think you can be a theist however your conception of God has to be slightly different from the majority... I have no problem with people whom for instance attribute the name 'God' to perhaps a creative force or whatever.

However I would wonder whether you are perhaps agnostic (the easiest position to come to) however sway on the side of theism? I personally consider myself an agnostic because I see no problem what so ever with saying that anything is possible... however I also think we have a need to use some deductive logic to come conclusions about the universe. While I do not think it's impossible that there is a diety (even one conceptualised as the major faiths do) I think the likelyhood is extremely low... therefore I choose to call myself an atheist.
 
I would like to know if James Randi thinks skeptics can believe that their significant others love them. This would be the same order of evidence as the existence of god.
 
Mercutio said:
Alliebubs, if his position is emotion-based, and you were moved and touched by his story, I think you may well understand his position. (or not; I do not claim to speak for Hal.) You may simply not be persuaded by his account.

There is a major difference in the effect of the emotional argument, depending on whether the pronoun is "he" or "I".
Click to expand...

Mercutio,

Being moved and touched by his story, which I was, came from a place of relation to my own experiences. That is why I can empathise and understand. However, I think you've actually pinpointed my source of confliction; I was simply not persuaded, mainly because I have gone through something parallel quite recently, but I have tried to not let it cloud my judgment. There is no God, and as much as it would comfort me to know that my loved one is looking down on me and guiding me, or torture me knowing that if I had prayed more, my father would've been saved, I just can't bring myself to knowingly ignore the evidence, because it'd make me feel better.

Perhaps another reason why I was not persuaded was the lack of empirical evidence that Hal presented. But again, I do realise that wasn't the main point of his talk.
 
This would be the same order of evidence as the existence of god.
Click to expand...

Well first we would need a definition of 'love'. I don't think you can prove 'love' as a tangible thing exists until you define it... and I think you would define it along the lines of some complex social interactions, emotions such as empathy etc...
 
Hal said something to the effect of "If you're counting the logical fallacies in this presentation, then 'appeal to emotion' will be coming up a lot" right at the start.
 
Dog said:
I would like to know if James Randi thinks skeptics can believe that their significant others love them. This would be the same order of evidence as the existence of god.
Click to expand...
It would? So when my wife says "I love you" it's like me saying to myself "God loves me"?

~~ Paul
 
Dogdoctor said:
I would like to know if James Randi thinks skeptics can believe that their significant others love them. This would be the same order of evidence as the existence of god.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

I am capable of loving other people myself; so why should I think that nobody else has that ability? Other peolpe that claim they are in love act much the same way I do when I know I am in love. It's not much of a stretch to assume that at least some of these people might genuinly love at those times.

So, I can belive that my SO loves me; I can reach that conclusion based on what I hear and see them do.

Can I ever be absolutely certain? No, but that's not the issue.
Can I have good reason for my believe? Yes, and it'S of the kind that noone ever has been able to produce of their alleged gods.

Of course, my big advantage is that before I can decide if someone loves me, I should be able to decide if they exist at all. Not too hard to do with a SO, either.

Rasmus.
 
dogdoctor is the next witgenstein.

The problem with your logic Rasmus... is that you say you've loved people, therefore love is possible or whatever - while it cannot be tested. Theists will claim they have communicated with God, that others can do it, etc and that is their reason for belief.

Both you and them will make claims, however both can be explained away fairly well using other possibilities. That's why I think first off it's a real good idea to get an understanding of what 'love' is, which I think science has actually done a decent job of.
 
Rasmus said:
Not at all.

I am capable of loving other people myself; so why should I think that nobody else has that ability? Other peolpe that claim they are in love act much the same way I do when I know I am in love. It's not much of a stretch to assume that at least some of these people might genuinly love at those times.

So, I can belive that my SO loves me; I can reach that conclusion based on what I hear and see them do.

Can I ever be absolutely certain? No, but that's not the issue.
Can I have good reason for my believe? Yes, and it'S of the kind that noone ever has been able to produce of their alleged gods.

Of course, my big advantage is that before I can decide if someone loves me, I should be able to decide if they exist at all. Not too hard to do with a SO, either.

Rasmus.
Click to expand...
The issue is what proof is necessary to believe something. Is it possible someone loves you? Is it possible a god like creature exists? I would answer yes to both. The proof would be quite similar for both. No clear logical evidence for either.
 
The issue is what proof is necessary to believe something. Is it possible someone loves you? Is it possible a god like creature exists? I would answer yes to both. The proof would be quite similar for both. No clear logical evidence for either.
Click to expand...

No - Because once we're willing to actually understand what 'love' is, we can test it. People can use deductive logic based on what this person has expressed to them (body language, talk, etc) to formulate whether or not this person actually loves them.
 
Dog said:
The issue is what proof is necessary to believe something. Is it possible someone loves you? Is it possible a god like creature exists? I would answer yes to both. The proof would be quite similar for both. No clear logical evidence for either.
Click to expand...
Huh? Are you suggesting that everyone that ever said they love someone could be a liar?

~~ Paul
 
There are Social Psychologists who have made a career of studying love. I have given behavioral analyses of love on this forum. Love, although a summary label for a wide variety of behaviors, is measurable (with the same constraints as any other variable--any given operational measurement is imperfect, although many operational definitions will converge on a consensus). God is rarely measurable. When we make predictions which depend on a god, we are then making empirical statements about god, which are thus testable. The difference is...when we operationalize love, it still exists. When we operationalize god...no such luck.
 
Chadd said:
The problem with your logic Rasmus... is that you say you've loved people, therefore love is possible or whatever - while it cannot be tested. Theists will claim they have communicated with God, that others can do it, etc and that is their reason for belief.
Click to expand...
Love is defined as what people feel when they say they love someone. Unless everyone is a liar, love exists. There is no arguing that theists have "communicated with god." The problem is that god is undefined, which means that people may be doing nothing more than communicating with themselves.

~~ Paul
 
Love is defined as what people feel when they say they love someone. Unless everyone is a liar, love exists.
Click to expand...

Everyone might not be a liar... they just might be feeling different things, or whatever. That's why we have to take what love is, break down the definition... and measure it properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom