Can a Skeptic Believe in God? Responses to Panel Discussion

[Alliebubs]

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.

That's not what I said. I realise that "the truth" of the non-existence of God might be the ultimate goal and reason to think critically and skeptically but, to use an analogy, you can't teach someone graduate-level calculus if you don't give them the rudimentary skills in addition and subtraction. By coming at deists/theists with such a harsh attack without giving them the skills or evidence to find out "the truth" on their own, we're just as bad as fundamentalists who entreat their followers to just take their word for it, and believe. If it's wrong for religious fundamentalists to use that approach, we shouldn't try to make it work for us.

 

[JamesDillon]

Xin,

I agree with you, but I think it's important to distinguish two questions here:
1. Can a person be a good skeptic and hold some irrational beliefs?
2. Can a person be a good skeptic and believe, rationally, that the best interpretation of the evidence supports a belief in God, UFOs, Bigfoot, etc.?

I think the answer to both questions is a provisional yes. I would argue that a "good skeptic" (whatever that is) who holds an irrational belief (whether acknowledged as such or not) is not being a skeptic or thinking critically as to that belief, but it is entirely possible that the individual, on balance, tends to favor skeptical and critical thinking and therefore is skeptical enough to deserve the label.

As to the second question, I hate to sound like a broken record, but once again, I reiterate my view that being a skeptic is a matter of one's methodology, and has nothing at all to do with the content of one's beliefs. It seems entirely possible to me that a dedicated skeptic could be presented with a limited universe of evidence and rationally conclude that Bigfoot exists, God is great and Elvis has not yet left the building (I think I saw him lurking in the back of the room at TAM, in fact). Another skeptic could offer contradictory evidence or recognize a flaw in the first person's reasoning, and come to the opposite view. One would be right and one would be wrong, but I see no reason whatsoever to say that they can't both rightly be called skeptics.

 

[TheChadd]

That's not what I said. I realise that "the truth" of the non-existence of God might be the ultimate goal and reason to think critically and skeptically but, to use an analogy, you can't teach someone graduate-level calculus if you don't give them the rudimentary skills in addition and subtraction. By coming at deists/theists with such a harsh attack without giving them the skills or evidence to find out "the truth" on their own, we're just as bad as fundamentalists who entreat their followers to just take their word for it, and believe. If it's wrong for religious fundamentalists to use that approach, we shouldn't try to make it work for us.

I don't think it should be a harsh attack, we should just explain individually that it is what we believe. Of course the main focus should be on giving these people the skills, not simply telling them what is wrong and right.. I didn't want to advocate that in any way. My suggestion is that using the usual skeptic debunking methods and applying them to most theistic beliefs you should come to the conclusion that they are bunk, if you don't I think you're being disingenuous - unless of course you have a non-mainsteam theist belief that may be somewhat more logical.

1. Can a person be a good skeptic and hold some irrational beliefs?

They may be a good skeptic, but they are in that circumstance not being skeptical. I think 'skeptic' is often situational, while a traditional theist may be a skeptic in some situations they are not skeptical when it comes to their belief. Now does this make them less of a skeptic? Of course it does for this area - However it shouldn't take away from their skepticism in other areas. This of course holds that this person has does not have a right to claim they are a skeptic in reguards to their belief.

2. Can a person be a good skeptic and believe, rationally, that the best interpretation of the evidence supports a belief in God, UFOs, Bigfoot, etc.?

Oh yes of course, however I would claim they're either being disingenuous or perhaps have some extreme difficulties.

 

[Dogdoctor]

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.

If you want people to learn to think skeptically, you will be less effective by being smug and self righteous. If you want to promote atheism, the atheist community needs to show how atheism is better for society than religion which so far they have failed to do. Focusing on atheism as the only acceptable belief would only result in more resistance to learning by scaring believers perhaps to the point of acting to protect their eminent domain. Religion has been around for a very long time and will be for another very long time. If atheists can accept that they would find people more likely to seriously look at what they offer since it would be offered in peace instead of as an attack on their beliefs. This is all my opinion but I know lots of religious people and I know how they react to various things.

 

[Fun2BFree]

If one is an atheist based on a rational exam of the evidence then a rational examination of the evidence would also support the idea that arguing with religious believers that they are not "good thinkers" or "wrong" is not going to be a successful strategy to increase "good thinking"--I think that they are wrong and they are not "good thinkers" and that their beliefs do lead to many bad things...but I don't know that anyone has discovered a successful way to get them to change...we need a better way...

 

[TheChadd]

If you want people to learn to think skeptically, you will be less effective by being smug and self righteous.

If you want to promote atheism, the atheist community needs to show how atheism is better for society than religion which so far they have failed to do.

I don't think it has much to do with how atheism is better for society, I don't think this will win over too many people.

Focusing on atheism as the only acceptable belief would only result in more resistance to learning by scaring believers perhaps to the point of acting to protect their eminent domain. Religion has been around for a very long time and will be for another very long time.

I don't think it's the only acceptable belief, I just don't think traditional theistic beliefs fall in line with skepticism. These people can still be skeptics in other areas, but I doubt they have strong skeptical reasoning for their belief. I see a different standard being applied...

If atheists can accept that they would find people more likely to seriously look at what they offer since it would be offered in peace instead of as an attack on their beliefs.

I agree that when religious beliefs are under attack they seem to grow in support, however I don't see how this means we should accept traditional theists claiming they are skeptical (at least in the realm of their spiritual beliefs), it belittles what it means.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Sorry I wasn't there, Hal's cool, we talked at Tam 1 and 2 about losses and deism.
I get the feeling that Hal's deism is like Buddha mind in that it doesn't mess with other people.

 

[ReFLeX]

These people can still be skeptics in other areas, but I doubt they have strong skeptical reasoning for their belief. I see a different standard being applied...

Because religious belief is different. Religion is overwhelmingly the most popular belief to dedicate oneself to. It is an important part of many people's identities. Try to be empathic to people who have never even considered serious alternatives to their beliefs.

How many census forms have you seen asking whether the members of the household believe in psychics or Bigfoot? Whether they've been to an alternative medicine practitioner? These are beliefs, but they're rarely as central to one's life as religion is. Why shouldn't there be a different standard applied? You do not doubt everything.

 

[Xin]

As to the second question, I hate to sound like a broken record, but once again, I reiterate my view that being a skeptic is a matter of one's methodology, and has nothing at all to do with the content of one's beliefs. It seems entirely possible to me that a dedicated skeptic could be presented with a limited universe of evidence and rationally conclude that Bigfoot exists, God is great and Elvis has not yet left the building (I think I saw him lurking in the back of the room at TAM, in fact). Another skeptic could offer contradictory evidence or recognize a flaw in the first person's reasoning, and come to the opposite view. One would be right and one would be wrong, but I see no reason whatsoever to say that they can't both rightly be called skeptics.

Exactly right.
As long as they are both applying proper principles to the facts and information available to them, and are not allowing their views and beliefs to color the evidence available. It would be unfair to say that a theist is incapable of being a skeptic, for then we would we not also have to apply the same reasoning to members of political parties? Hmm, on second thought, maybe we should ;-)

 

[TheChadd]

Try to be empathic to people who have never even considered serious alternatives to their beliefs.

Oh I'm empathetic to them, I still don't see however why we should accept such beliefs as skeptical?

 

[Alliebubs]

Oh I'm empathetic to them, I still don't see however why we should accept such beliefs as skeptical?

Anyone reading this response, feel free to correct me but, I think the intent of James's original post was to reiterate that the *beliefs* are not inferred to be explicitly skeptical, but the methodology used to reach said beliefs is what constitutes the salient point of skepticism. If a person has used logical reasoning and critical thinking in other subject matters, does that make them less of a skeptic because they have reached the conclusion they believe in a supreme being? Not necessarily. That may show the person's flawed use of logic in this particular instance but, to dismiss someone as a skeptic outright is not very logical.

 

[TheChadd]

That may show the person's flawed use of logic in this particular instance but, to dismiss someone as a skeptic outright is not very logical.

Oh I'm not saying these people are not 'skeptics'.. I think it's situational and I believe all (at least that i've seen so far) traditional theists whom have a strong claim to skepticism in other areas, when it comes to their theism are not displaying skepticism.

 

[delphi_ote]

On a related note, and no offense to those of you who gave him a standing ovation, but was Hal Bidlack's position essentially, "My wife died of cancer so therefore you can't challenge my admittedly irrational belief in God"?

That is without a doubt the most disgusting and disappointing post I've ever read on this forum.

Dr. Bidlack shared something deeply personal to help us understand why he sees things the way he does. That Hal handled his loss as rationally as he did is a testament to a sharp mind and strong will. He deserves our support and welcome. Quibbling over something none of us have evidence for or against is pointless, destructive, and immature.

 

[Loon]

I don't want to speak for Hal, but it sure didn't sound like he was trying to prove to anyone that god exists, or the his particular conception of god was correct.

He was saying "I beleive this without evidence. I am aware that I believe this without evidence. Here is why I believe without evidence." You certainly can't prove that such a god doesnt' exist (though you can show that if god does exist, he doesn't intervene much).

 

[TheChadd]

If that's what Hal was saying I certainly admire him. He is not claiming his belief is skeptical, he is in fact claiming it has no evidence... simply that it's what he needs for comfort - alot of people believe for such reasons, but do not have the strength and conviction to admit to it.

 

[Alliebubs]

That is without a doubt the most disgusting and disappointing post I've ever read on this forum.

Dr. Bidlack shared something deeply personal to help us understand why he sees things the way he does. That Hal handled his loss as rationally as he did is a testament to a sharp mind and strong will. He deserves our support and welcome. Quibbling over something none of us have evidence for or against is pointless, destructive, and immature.

I think flaming someone isn't very constructive, is it? Sharp mind and strong will aside, I think the point of this thread is to conduct some rational conversation about the fact that the issue of the panel discussion, in conjunction with Bidlack's lecture, didn't really address the question of "can a skeptic believe in God?". I empathise and commiserate with the loss of Mr. Bidlack, truly but, that doesn't minimise the fact that the lecture was lacking in trying to reconcile the apparent divide between belief and skepticism. One might even call this a very engaging and enthralling lecture, appealing to my emotions and causing my eyes to dampen slightly but, essentially, it did nothing to answer, or even attempt to answer, the salient question it supposedly was addressing.

 

[delphi_ote]

Exactly, Loon and Chad. He absolutely was not trying to convince anyone that God exists. His belief is illogical. All of us agree on that; even Dr. Bidlack. His belief is compatible with methodological naturalism, though. We can all sit down in a lab and agree on how reality will behave.

His point was that we shouldn't alienate people like him, and unless we're trying to get revenge for all the religious nuts who alienated us, I see no reason to do so.

 

[Alliebubs]

If that's what Hal was saying I certainly admire him. He is not claiming his belief is skeptical, he is in fact claiming it has no evidence... simply that it's what he needs for comfort - alot of people believe for such reasons, but do not have the strength and conviction to admit to it.

Comfort is not a very logical reason to believe in something, is it? I'd *love* to believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster that has preordained a path for me, thereby alleviating any responsibility for anything in my life. But, the fact is that isn't so, and however comforting the thought may be, logic and rational thinking should still be of paramount importance, regardless of emotional comfort. I grapple with this dichotomy in my life every day, but, at the end of the day, one must realise that consistency and stability are the only things that help a person move on. And that consistency and stability can really only be found in thinking rationally and logically. If someone else can perhaps point me in the direction of a deist point of view that provides those two things, I'd love to listen.

 

[delphi_ote]

I think flaming someone isn't very constructive, is it? Sharp mind and strong will aside, I think the point of this thread is to conduct some rational conversation about the fact that the issue of the panel discussion, in conjunction with Bidlack's lecture, didn't really address the question of "can a skeptic believe in God?". I empathise and commiserate with the loss of Mr. Bidlack, truly but, that doesn't minimise the fact that the lecture was lacking in trying to reconcile the apparent divide between belief and skepticism. One might even call this a very engaging and enthralling lecture, appealing to my emotions and causing my eyes to dampen slightly but, essentially, it did nothing to answer, or even attempt to answer, the salient question it supposedly was addressing.

Flaming? Dr. Bidlack stood up in front of a hostile crowd and asked to be accepted despite a flaw in his logic. Among the first replies I read is someone accusing the man of abusing his wife's death to make a point. That's way out of line.

 

[Alliebubs]

Exactly, Loon and Chad. He absolutely was not trying to convince anyone that God exists. His belief is illogical. All of us agree on that; even Dr. Bidlack. His belief is compatible with methodological naturalism, though. We can all sit down in a lab and agree on how reality will behave.

His point was that we shouldn't alienate people like him, and unless we're trying to get revenge for all the religious nuts who alienated us, I see no reason to do so.

Again, I don't think the point of this thread was to alienate at all. It was to discuss the panel discussion and lecture. (By the way, the panel discussion was much better the second day, don't you think?)

By not engaging in how he arrived at his current belief system, I think he left a lot to be desired and, thus, was borne the need to discuss his effectiveness at TAM. Before anyone flames me now, his entire talk was to tell us *why* he believes what he believes, not *how* he came to that determination. And that is what we're trying to discuss.

(Just an aside: I'm SO sorry the boy and I didn't get to meet you in Vegas. Sigh. There's always next year. )