Can a Skeptic Believe in God? Responses to Panel Discussion

[Rasmus]

How can anyone say love exists or can be shown to be true if we don't even know what it is.

Speak for yourself; it appears that most participants in this thread have a working idea of what "love" means.

Are you honestly claiming you don't?

Even if not, what makes you think that it would be difficult to reach agreement for a scientific setting?

Rasmus.

 

[TheChadd]

It is hilarious to me that we have people arguing "you must define love", when the researchers who study it have been doing so since the early 70's.

I dunno if you're referring to me, but I was simply trying to show the way in which you would go about trying to test something. I tried not to suggest that we don't have adequate definitions

 

[Dogdoctor]

Speak for yourself; it appears that most participants in this thread have a working idea of what "love" means.

Are you honestly claiming you don't?

Even if not, what makes you think that it would be difficult to reach agreement for a scientific setting?

Rasmus.

It would be difficult since it most likely is a combination of genetics and experiences. I am sure we wouldn't even be able to say what genes or what experiences shape our concept of love. I am not sure you can come up with something and if you did it would not be the love described for years by poets and romantics. If we all have different definitions then we can't discuss it really.

 

[Dogdoctor]

It is hilarious to me that we have people arguing "you must define love", when the researchers who study it have been doing so since the early 70's.

Operational definitions don't have to be perfect, people, in order to be useful. Scientific progress is being made here. Perhaps a trip to the library is in order?

people have been defining god for years. Does that mean anything? I guess I do need a trip to the library since no one here is going to provide an answer.

 

[TheChadd]

people have been defining god for years. Does that mean anything?

Well if there is some sort of concensus definition then that definition allows us to test the existance of god using what we have :/

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I think Dr. Schumer resolved the issue when in a room full of skeptics he asked that anyone who believes in god to raise their hand, and several people did (although it was certainly a minority).

LLH

 

[Mercutio]

people have been defining god for years. Does that mean anything? I guess I do need a trip to the library since no one here is going to provide an answer.

I am not talking about poets defining love. I am talking about operational definitions. Definitions which allow us to measure.

Can you tell me how you can measure god? Have people been doing that for years? Can you tell me, in a particular person, whether god is or is not present in his house? In his life?

 

[Rasmus]

It would be difficult since it most likely is a combination of genetics and experiences.

Never! have I oberved that the claim "I love her" or "I lvoe him" was greeted with blank stares and the demand to define what the speaker meant when he was talking about that statrnge love-thing.

Genetics? Hardly. As far as I know, my DNA does not usually change dramatically over the course of my life. But I have been falling in and out of love, so whlst my genes might enable me to love on some level, they would be irrelevant to this discussion.

Experiences? Neither, unless you include the experiance of becoming aware of the object of one's love ...

I am sure we wouldn't even be able to say what genes or what experiences shape our concept of love.

So?

I couldn't tell you what genes or experiance shape my concept of a banana, but I have no doubt that they exist and that I could have a reasonable discussion about bananas with most people and would not need to spend a whole lot of time defining what a banana is.

I am not sure you can come up with something and if you did it would not be the love described for years by poets and romantics.

So why is it that poets and romatics can describe that love-thing in a way that apparently makes sense to you, but I cannot? Why can you easily recognize what they speak of and asume that they are all referring to the same thing whilst you are at the same time denying that it could be subject to scientific examination?

If we all have different definitions then we can't discuss it really.

It is you who asserts that we all do have different definitions. In my world, no such confusion sems ot exists between people - at least not in general.

I can't help but woner if oyu ever discuss politics, or the weather, or music ...

Rasmus.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I am not talking about poets defining love. I am talking about operational definitions. Definitions which allow us to measure.

Can you tell me how you can measure god? Have people been doing that for years? Can you tell me, in a particular person, whether god is or is not present in his house? In his life?

I have to go look at what are the definitions that people are labeling love and measuring. Anyway the point was that the evidence for both is not clear and in truth "love" per se may not exist and may actually be several different emotions. I guess it is pointless to discuss this further just like discussing the existence of god. I will start a new thread if and when I get information to do so.

 

[Mercutio]

I have to go look at what are the definitions that people are labeling love and measuring. Anyway the point was that the evidence for both is not clear and in truth "love" per se may not exist and may actually be several different emotions. I guess it is pointless to discuss this further just like discussing the existence of god. I will start a new thread if and when I get information to do so.

I have spoken of this here before...love is not one thing, but a category of things we have attached one label to. Like "nice"--what things fit in that category vary from person to person, but with substantial and meaningful overlap. That's the way language works.

But just because no two snowflakes are alike, this does not mean we ever confuse snowflakes with diesel locomotives. There is sufficient similarity among concepts of love to study it. Can the same be said for god? Can we operationally define god?

 

[bug_girl]

back to the panel....
I was VERY uncomfortable with the way the panel went. I don't know if any of you saw me chasing Kramer and the microphone around so I could say my piece.
If we are going to say that the only way to be a "true" skeptic and critical thinker is to be an atheist, then skepticism is pretty much dead in terms of gaining more than 10% of the population. People will not radically change their world view based on an argument, or a series of logical prepositions. How many times have we had a woo come to the forum and suddenly say "wow! you're right! Why didn't I see that?"
People change slowly and incrementally.

I think Shermer hit it right on the head when he said "get people thinking critically and skeptically. The rest will follow." (BTW, I was really reassured to hear that, since some allusions were made to a closer relationship between Shermer and JREF.)

I agree with Quinn. What a waste of brainpower, when so many other interesting things could have been discussed.

Lastly, I'm concerned that in aligning itself so strongly with atheism, many people will simply not consider anything JREF offers. Atheism is such a scary beast to so many people. From a strictly marketing standpoint, it's not a good move.

 

[TheChadd]

It's not about marketing... it's about what we have assessed to be the truth. If we believe that true skeptics will come to the conclusion that God (at least most conceptualisations of God) probably does not exist then we have to say that - people will be uncomfortable about it and I think alot of skeptics try to keep this topic to a minimal as it is one of the most sensitive but as supported by that Shermer quote, the expected result of a skeptic analysing the existance of god is that they will find it to not be true.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I have spoken of this here before...love is not one thing, but a category of things we have attached one label to. Like "nice"--what things fit in that category vary from person to person, but with substantial and meaningful overlap. That's the way language works.

But just because no two snowflakes are alike, this does not mean we ever confuse snowflakes with diesel locomotives. There is sufficient similarity among concepts of love to study it. Can the same be said for god? Can we operationally define god?

Am I going to take your word for it that we have some concept of love sufficient to study it? No, I am skeptical of your opinion on this matter. Can the same be said for god? Hmmm I will concede that there are far ranging differences in the belief of what god is, however I am looking for concrete information saying that it differs in to a greater degree than definitions of love and there are people who believe and don't believe in both of them. Both are merely concepts that we imagine and ultimately will probably be defined as biochemical processes in our brains. I am not sure even why I have taken on this discussion since I don't believe in god (other than this argument seems to make sense to me.) Let me investigate a bit.
Along the lines of the original post in a couple of surveys of skeptics there were 14% and 18% who believed in god (mentioned in Shermers book how we believe) Out of the believers 29.2 % believed in god because of arguments based on design/natural beauty/perfection/complexity which surprises me since the rest are convinced that none of that evidence exists and that is why they are nonbelievers.

 

[Dogdoctor]

back to the panel....
I was VERY uncomfortable with the way the panel went. I don't know if any of you saw me chasing Kramer and the microphone around so I could say my piece.
If we are going to say that the only way to be a "true" skeptic and critical thinker is to be an atheist, then skepticism is pretty much dead in terms of gaining more than 10% of the population. People will not radically change their world view based on an argument, or a series of logical prepositions. How many times have we had a woo come to the forum and suddenly say "wow! you're right! Why didn't I see that?"
People change slowly and incrementally.

I think Shermer hit it right on the head when he said "get people thinking critically and skeptically. The rest will follow." (BTW, I was really reassured to hear that, since some allusions were made to a closer relationship between Shermer and JREF.)

I agree with Quinn. What a waste of brainpower, when so many other interesting things could have been discussed.

Lastly, I'm concerned that in aligning itself so strongly with atheism, many people will simply not consider anything JREF offers. Atheism is such a scary beast to so many people. From a strictly marketing standpoint, it's not a good move.

I agree Bug_girl,
I sometimes wonder if I should disagree with the Amazing One since this forum is about promoting his JREF, however it seems to me that creating a strongly atheist image will lessen the potential for impact of JREF. NO offense to the Amazing One.

 

[Alliebubs]

It's not about marketing... it's about what we have assessed to be the truth.

But...

I think Bug Girl has a point. By aligning so strongly with the atheist movement, the JREF might be alienating itself from the mainstream. Not to say one must pander to the most common denominator to be successful, which would not be ideal. (Er, the pandering, not the successfulness of the foundation.)

As long as thinking critically and logically is the mandate of the foundation, and what people aspire to, it won't necessarily matter, since the rest (read: realising God doesn't exist) will likely fall into place.

(Just an aside: This was the very reason I didn't particularly enjoy Ellen Johnson's lecture. Not because I didn't appreciate the subject matter; quite the opposite, I'm actually inspired to learn more about Madalyn Murray O'Hair. But, I just didn't appreciate the militant attitude.)

 

[TheChadd]

I think Bug Girl has a point. By aligning so strongly with the atheist movement, the JREF might be alienating itself from the mainstream.

however it seems to me that creating a strongly atheist image will lessen the potential for impact of JREF.

So we should just pick on the less popular myths, let people have their 'god' security blanket and hope that while they learn to dismiss the other myths they will also dismiss their God? I think while this is certainly probably a better way to ensure people feel comfortable with the skeptic movement, it is simply disingenuous and makes a mockery of what at least I feel the moment is about - The truth.

 

[Fun2BFree]

I am shocked no one has mentioned what to me was the first main problem with the panel discussion - it was not a PANEL DISCUSSION for the first 10 inutes but a monologue by Jamy Ian Swiss...Jamy is obviously well read, and a nice guy but a moderator should not do what he was doing...having all those quotes and articles is fine for rediriecting or invigorating the discussion not to be piled up at the start like some sort of dissertation..

Now others have covered some of the other key points well - but there were some things I would have liked to have had discussed.

One- what does it mean to be a skeptic? To me the key is that ideas or notions or propositions are accepted as true as the evidence that supports the truth of them.
Negative evidence--reject proposition--
NO evidence--no acceptance...
more evidence - conditionally accept
lots of evidence--accept as asymptotically approaching truth/fact status...

So what was Hal's evidence to support his belief? I think ultimately his "evidence" was that it comforts him. Okay. That is a real world phenomenon that I believe is observable...comfort -like love is not one thing that we have a device to measure but it is a real feeling experienced subjectively just as much as pain is--the key is this is a subjective experience. So first thing we can ask is does the idea that one is comforted by something make it evidence of its truth? I think any honest assessment has to be that the truth and the ability to comfort are not related in any consistent way.

I also question this assumption that the religious have repeated over and over so many times that nobody seems too interested in challenging it--that these "god beliefs" offer comfort....I don't frankly see it--believers seem sad and scared and rage against the dying of the light in an uncomfortable way that has methinking they dost protest too much about the comfort derived from believing in gods sometimes...Paul Provenza's comments about how hard the Pope fought-- or his doctors fought-- to keep him propped up and alive seems relevant here...if the loving comfort of Jesus awaits you what are you all so worked up about? ....and there also seems to be an implication that such comfort is not equally possible - if not more possible with a more evidence supported worldview...I think this bears further study...I am a cancer doctor..most--but not all-- of my patients are theists of one sort or another...I am interested in how the nontheistic patients and families deal with end of life issues...what needs and strategies do they have that might be unique to those who don't have the "Comfort" of belief in some god? I wonder if this has been studied at all--most end of life care talks about spirituality in a way slanted for the majority of people. ie religious people...maybe European literature has some thing to say. I will look into it.....I do know I have had both theist and atheist patients deal quite comfortably with the ends of their lives...

sounds to me like Hal's wife- an atheist was "spiritually" okay with her nonbelief-and her death-if only she could have had better pain control...his story was heart wrenching...but as others have noted --not really evidence....I understand his pain...I don't think that allows anyone to carve out little belief areas where evidence is not required...this is Sam Harris's argument and one the panel could have discussed since Jamy did mention it in his "introduction/monopolization"-- accepting of beliefs without evidence is a moderate position that leaves one having no defense against other non-evidence supported beliefs.....for example someone could say "I believe that white people are better than blacks in a way you cannot measure, but that comforts me to think it." Now the difference of course is what real world consequence emanate from these non evidence supported beliefs and this is precisely wherein I think Harris' argument misses the point even as he makes it defending meditation, etc...

SUBJECTIVELY experienced things like beliefs are ONLY relevant when they cross over into OBJECTIVE effects....so yes skeptics can believe in God so long as the objective effects of that belief are "acceptable" --that definition of what is acceptable will depend on a societal cultural definition of what is the desired ends are...and there is where all of us who find ourselves attracted to this skeptical movement I suspect are mostly in agreement...the desire to increase evidence based belief and action, expand human freedom through a greater understanding of the TRUE world...

just a thought...

 

[Xin]

I know I'm late to this thread, and so my apologies, but:

Can someone believe in ghosts or believe in ESP or believe in UFOs or believe in reincarnation or believe in God...and still be a skeptic?
Yes, as long that person can admit that it is an irrational belief in the face of the evidence available.

I would present this another way.
A person is...
afraid of going outside.
afraid of small closed in spaces... I fall into this category
afraid of small insects with eight legs.
afraid of the dark, with no good reasonable explanation.
afraid to consider that there likely is no life after death.
afraid to think that there is no great deity watching out for us.
afraid to think that bad things may actually happen to good people without reason.
They can still be a skeptic, can't they?

There are so many reasons why giving up a belief in God may be hard/difficult/even impossible.
That doesn't mean a person can't be a good skeptic.

Inability to face down an irrational fear or belief does not make one incapable of skepticism or critical thinking.
It is important though, to be able to admit to the irrationality and work hard not to let it color conclusions and statements of fact.

Consider, I think that Randi himself would be ready to declare that telepathy existed if it were reproduced and verified under the correct scientifically controlled conditions.
Given that there is no proof that there is not a god.
Can an atheist be a good skeptic?
Or should all skeptics be only agnostics?

 

[JamesDillon]

Chadd,

I think it's a matter of deciding which "truth" the JREF stands for: skepticism or atheism? As I explained in the opening post in this thread, my view is that skepticism is a methodological truth, not a content-based one. That is to say, anyone who thinks critically about ideas and demands evidence in favor of a belief before adopting that belief is qualified to be called a skeptic, regardless of the content of that person's views on God or anything else. As it happens, my view is that the best interpretation of the available evidence leads to the conclusion that God does not exist, but I don't think that adopting that or any other non-methodological belief has any bearing whatsoever on whether a person should be called a skeptic, and advancing those beliefs does not, in my view, have anything to do with what the JREF stands for.

 

[TheChadd]

There are so many reasons why giving up a belief in God may be hard/difficult/even impossible.
That doesn't mean a person can't be a good skeptic.

All the reasons you provided are different... you can be afraid of things for illogical reasons, however as long as you accept that your fear is illogical I would say you are a skeptic. 'Theist Skeptics' are not claiming this, they are claiming that they believe God actually exists.

Can an atheist be a good skeptic?
Or should all skeptics be only agnostics?

Skeptics should all be agnostics... it is evident that anything is possible (however of course this is a paradox... as then if anything is possible it is possible that some things are impossible) so we should start off with that as our framework. Everything is possible.

Now, we should apply deductive logic - all we have. We should then be able to say that while it is possible there is a God, from the evidence I have... I can assume that the probability is extremely low - therefore for all practical purposes I am an atheist.

That is to say, anyone who thinks critically about ideas and demands evidence in favor of a belief before adopting that belief is qualified to be called a skeptic, regardless of the content of that person's views on God or anything else.

Yes however I feel alot of 'skeptics' whom claim to believe in God aren't being truthful to the skepticism which they apply in other situations - That is why it has a different result. I agree with you completely and if there are theists out there whom are applying critical thinking/scientific method in the way which we expect from skeptics and they still come to the conclusion that God probably exists - then sure, they are skeptics.