Can a Skeptic Believe in God? Responses to Panel Discussion

[Alliebubs]

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.

Whoops. I apologise. I should've used Dr. in addressing Dr. Bidlack. My mistake. Really.

 

[delphi_ote]

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.

Do you have any evidence for that claim, or could I be talking to a skeptic with an irrational belief?

 

[TheChadd]

Comfort is not a very logical reason to believe in something, is it?

Of course I'm not suggesting that... it is not logical at all, however if it truely comforts you and doesn't hurt you in more seriously negative ways (which is true in hals case... it sounds like he simply uses his belief to make himself feel better about his wifes death), I see no drastic problem with it.

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.

While I somewhat agree, I do not wish to condemn people who know and admit that they know that their belief is mere fantasy, if it does not pervade into other aspects of their life and perhaps just gives them an easy quick fix to grief.

And that consistency and stability can really only be found in thinking rationally and logically.

Yes, this, I believe - is right... However sometimes for emotional stability people find that they need to believe in something. If this is not effecting their rationality in other areas then I feel no need to heavily criticise it.. Especially when we consider how many people have these beliefs for the exact same reasons but produce wild confabulations to explain them away.

 

[Alliebubs]

Do you have any evidence for that claim, or could I be talking to a skeptic with an irrational belief?

Sarcasm. Lovely.

 

[Darat]

Ok, tell us: How can God possibly be falsifiable?

Let me speculate:

Failed prophecies? False prophets.
Evolution true? Non sequitur.
No supernatural events? Can't prove a universal negative.
Omnipotence contradictory? It doesn't really mean "all powers".
No detectable heaven? Heaven isn't material. Or, he's not the Christian God.

You see what I'm getting at? God's existence has always been non-falsifiable in principle.

Only certain definitions of God are inherently non-falsifiable. Some Gods are defined in ways that they can be tested for. If for instance you say God lives in a huge palace on top of that mountain, that God can be tested for. (E.g. you go and search the mountain and if no God and no huge palace is found you can conclude that God does not exist.)

 

[Darat]

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.

This is a basic site that explains the terms Merc is using. http://www.bobkwebsite.com/opdefs.html.

 

[delphi_ote]

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. )

The topic of his lecture and the panel discussion was "Can a skeptic believe in God?" I think he did a good job of addressing the fact that he is a skeptic (i.e. he is believes that the scientific method is the best way to find truth) that believes in God in some fashion that doesn't necessarily contradict his skepticism. To impart a better understanding of why this conflict is so hard for him to an audience isn't plagued with the same confusion, he expressed some very painful personal stories. That sense of conflict and confusion were central to his point.

(I think I saw you at one point in the crowd, but I couldn't catch up with you. But definitely next year!)

 

[delphi_ote]

Sarcasm. Lovely.

You're upset about sarcasm, yet you're defending JamesDillon's earlier post?

We all believe in irrational things. We all make assumptions. That's why skeptics rely on EVIDENCE to settle a dispute. You made one. Hal made one. Skeptics aren't perfect.

 

[Loon]

Again, Hal was only saying that you can believe in god and still be a skeptic. (I think it's also true that you can be an unbeliever and not be a skeptic.) The point was not to show how or why he beleived in god, but to show that, for one admittedly irrational reason or another, he does and is still otherwise skeptical.

Allie, I'm not sure I understand why you want to know "how" he came to believe in god. For that matter, I'm not entirely sure what exactly you're asking. I am sure that'd my head would be clearer if I didn't have a fever.

 

[Alliebubs]

Just trying to understand the methodological thinking behind the conclusion to choose to believe in an irrational god, and knowing your choice is irrational. That's all.

 

[Darat]

Comfort is not a very logical reason to believe in something, is it? ...snip...

I'm going to disagree and say for a human it can be a good sound reason to believe in something.

I think it is a self-evident fact that humans require or at least seek out "comfort". (And by comfort I mean a way of dealing with reality that at least at times masks the rational and allows us to function in our environment.) An example of this is that suicide rates are low even when people are in the most dire straits and have no evidence they will survive yet for some "reason" we continue to try and survive.

So we can't ignore that the "irrational" can be a rational and logical reason for why humans do certain things so I would say it may also be a logical reason why people believe in gods. It could be that what we see as atheism > agnostic > deist > theist and all the other shades of belief is merely a result of a behavioral trait which has no more inherent meaning then a spread of heights between people.

To feed this back into the central point of this discussion.

Consider this statement:

As a "sceptic" I have never seen any evidence or had evidence presented to me that requires the concept of any of the gods I know about to explain therefore I have no reason to believe in any of those gods.

That is I think a fair definition of the beliefs of a lot of people who seemingly consider that is the "sceptical" conclusion.

However for many "believers" they have at least some evidence, i.e.. the feeling of comfort. Now for many of us on the "atheist/agnostic" side this seems very weak evidence to conclude that "god" exists however we can't ignore it is evidence. Therefore we can say:

As a "believer" I have evidence that that can be explained by a certain concept of god therefore I have reason to believe in that god.

So what it comes down to is an argument about what level of evidence is required for the different "groups" to come to a certain conclusion. Not whether one group is somehow using different mechanism to arrive at different conclusions. I sincerely believe most believers and most sceptics actually use the same "methodology" i.e. our biology to come to different conclusions.

Sorry for the ramble - better get my first cup of tea of the day.

 

[Loon]

I'm not sure if I know Hal's reasoning. I can offer you a version of mine.

First is that I get an internal benefit from beleiving. Mainly it gives me someone to talk to (nobody has ever talked back).

Second, this unevidenced god also serves as a gratitude sink for me (this means that I always have someone to offer thanks to when things go well for me, even if I don't know who my benefactor is).

Third, I started with a default of belief. I was raised in a Jewish household and went to saturday school and stuff like that. While most of my interest and belief in god (especially the god depicted Torah) dwindled. The last few vestiges refused to go away. I could rid myself of them if I wanted to, but effort would be required. Possibly even uncomfortable effort. I don't see a reason to expend effort to get rid of something that offers a net benefit.

I don't claim that this god is a creator, nor omnipotent, nor omnibenevolent. The only claim I would make about this god is that he listens- I know this is totally unverifiable. I don't personally care whether anyone else believes in this god or not. I don't think any of the benefits I get from believing are from god, but rather from the process of believing; it's the belief, not the god, that is beneficial (at least, as far as I can tell.)

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

When I saw this panel discussion in the TAM4 flyer, it put the nail in the coffin on whether I'd attend or not. After things I had seen and heard at TAM 2 and 3 (from speakers and attendees), I didn't want listen to the same crap again. I don't know if I'm as atheist as they come, but one does not use "UnrepentantSinnerAtheist" as a Yahoo chat ID (and PalTalk) unless one isn't afraid of making a statement. But I get really sick of atheist skeptics bashing religious people who aren't woo woos. Hell even some of the woo woos are just misguided. That said...

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 agree with you, and in fact after one of the previous TAMs came up with a fairly succinct way of explaining my take. If I and someone else agree on 29 of 30 positions regarding issues warrenting skeptical inquiry (say homeopathy, cryptozoology, UFOlogy, etc.) but we disagree on the 30th (that being religion), I would still consider them a skeptic.

Now if this person agreed with me on a lot of issues (spam scams, AltMed, etc.) but was a Christian YECist, then I couldn't still call them a skeptic since YECism involves so many credulous approaches to so many diverse subjects. There's the (in)famous "skeptical Arab street," which is more of a bizarroskepticism that's cynical towards anything positive, but believes anything they're told negative about Jews, so an Islamic skeptic would need to hop over the "29 of 30" bar (with Holocaust denial being a deal breaker). And to be more specific, I would never consider a Scientologist a skeptic.

But what about an agnostic who had the 29, but thought there was something to cryptozoology. Well, as long as he or she didn't tell me Bigfoot, Nessie and Mkele Mbembe did in fact exist, and only saw them as still being worthy of investigation, I would still consider this person a skeptic.
-----------------
One thing tangental to Xin's quote, but germane to the OP is that religion has a cultural component that most other skeptical subjects don't. Obviously Astrology and some AltMed have cultural roots in Asia and Europe, but cryptozoology, UFOlogy, scam avoidance, Ponzi schemes, PSI, telekinesis and a whole host of other subjects atheists and the religious can agree on don't have the cultural impact, and indeed impact on self-identity that religion does.

If someone thinks they have telekineses or have inveted a ZPE device, and they decide to investigate it skeptically (or along with a skeptic), it might break their heart to find out they were wrong, but they'd get over it. If someone investigates their religion skeptically, how damaging can that be to their "self," or worse yet, to family relations? There's a lot more emotional investment in a religious believer than just "feeling good."

 

[Pyrrho]

Skeptics can believe in God, or not believe in God; they just can't be certain of it.

 

[Fun2BFree]

Subjective feelings like love and comfort are real.

As real phenomena they can be observed, albeit objective observation is indirect and difficult and imprecise.

As such they serve as weaker evidence.
Skeptics "beliefs" ought to be proportional to the degree that the evidence is objective and reproducible. Hence arguments based soley on difficult to objectivelly observe are inherently weaker. Not wrong -just lacking the substantive base provided by more solid (objective) evidence.

 

[JamesDillon]

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.

Delphi,

I regret having offended you, but I stand by all of my comments pertaining to Dr. Bidlack's lecture. (And please do read the subsequent ones, including especially my attempt to summarize Dr. Bidlack's lecture into quasi-syllogistic form. If you think that I mischaracterized it at any point, then please let me know.) In thinking about this matter further since last night, it occurred to me that, when someone inserts their own experiences and emotional responses as a key premise in an argument (or "position," if we accept that Dr. Bidlack was not trying to persuade anyone, but only explain his own view), the line between ad hominem and legitimate criticism gets somewhat blurry. Nevertheless, I did not mean to imply, as you suggest, that Dr. Bidlack does not deserve our support and welcome.

I did mean to imply, however, that the tragedies that have befallen Dr. Bidlack do not entitle him to greater tolerance or indulgence as to the irrational views or logical fallacies expressed in his presentation. As Alliebubs noted above, Dr. Bidlack told us nothing whatsoever about whether a skeptic can believe in God, because his presentation presented no evidence of the sort that a skeptic could accept, and lacked logical consistency. "My wife died of cancer so now I am a deist because it comforts me" is a non-sequitur justified only by an appeal to emotion. Dr. Bidlack is no doubt a fine man and an accomplished critical thinker in many aspects of his life, but I found that quality entirely lacking in his presentation at TAM.

Quibbling over something none of us have evidence for or against is pointless, destructive, and immature.

Isn't a lack of evidence for the existence of God a pretty good reason not to believe in one? In light of that lack of evidence, I think that the developing ability of science to explain the universe and all its phenomena materialistically a pretty good reason not to believe in supernatural agency.

 

[delphi_ote]

"My wife died of cancer so now I am a deist because it comforts me" is a non-sequitur justified only by an appeal to emotion.

What exactly does not follow in that line of reasoning?

"Isn't a lack of evidence for the existence of God a pretty good reason not to believe in one? In light of that lack of evidence, I think that the developing ability of science to explain the universe and all its phenomena materialistically a pretty good reason not to believe in supernatural agency.

Logic dictates that we treat our belief in God like we would invisible pink unicorns. That said, none of us behave 100% logically. Bidlack believes in something ultimately unprovable that has zero impact on our lives. None of us can prove he's wrong. In all other respects, he's a skeptic. Why take the title away from him because he's as fallible as the rest of us?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Skeptics can believe in God, or not believe in God; they just can't be certain of it.

I think this succint response kinda sums up the issue very nicely, but I have a quibble with it.

Religious beliefs are called such for a reason. Similarly skepticism has an ontological definition that inherently bars one from having, as you say, a certainty about a subject. But what happens when a subject that skeptics have issues with presents verifiable evidence? What happens when a plesiosaur is captured in Loch Ness? What happens when someone accurately predicts the future - consistently, verifiably and falsifiably? And, to make my quibble germane, what happens when someone is healed of medically documented paralysis or is raised from the dead?

I agreee completely that thinking 'God struck down Sharon for "dividing Isreal"" or that women outnumber men 4:1 to facilitate Islamic polygamy makes one a woo, but what about people who consider a perfectly rational relapse of cancer, or a sudden economic bonanza while in financial dire straights to be "evidence" of a deity effecting their lives?

I won't begrudge them the appellation skeptic as long as they don't assert Nessie is a living Plesiosaur, aliens are abducting people and Uri Geller bends forks via mind power alone.

If they question those issues, but still claim to have seen a shattered femur fixed by the Holy Spirit at a Benny Hinn revival... well, then we've got a problem, but if they have a personal - and I stress personal as being the rhetorical and rational keystone here - certainty about their deity I consider them a fellow traveller.

 

[Serenity]

I'm not sure if I know Hal's reasoning. I can offer you a version of mine.

First is that I get an internal benefit from beleiving. Mainly it gives me someone to talk to (nobody has ever talked back).

Second, this unevidenced god also serves as a gratitude sink for me (this means that I always have someone to offer thanks to when things go well for me, even if I don't know who my benefactor is).

Third, I started with a default of belief. I was raised in a Jewish household and went to saturday school and stuff like that. While most of my interest and belief in god (especially the god depicted Torah) dwindled. The last few vestiges refused to go away. I could rid myself of them if I wanted to, but effort would be required. Possibly even uncomfortable effort. I don't see a reason to expend effort to get rid of something that offers a net benefit.

I don't claim that this god is a creator, nor omnipotent, nor omnibenevolent. The only claim I would make about this god is that he listens- I know this is totally unverifiable. I don't personally care whether anyone else believes in this god or not. I don't think any of the benefits I get from believing are from god, but rather from the process of believing; it's the belief, not the god, that is beneficial (at least, as far as I can tell.)

I enjoyed reading Loon's post and respect him more for it. It reflects the diversity at JREF and the skeptic community in general. I’d hate the idea of applying some sort of litmus test of acceptance into a skeptic group. We should be welcoming anyone who is supportive to our cause, even if it’s the Pope. Moving believers toward the skeptic spectrum is better than chasing them off with a skep-stick.

We will all falter in our skepticism at some point in our lives. Hope that you are surrounded by those that care more about your humanity and are tolerant of your beliefs, than whether or not you’ve correctly aligned yourself with every bullet on some Skeptic Manifesto.

I think some of the flippant remarks toward Hal could’ve been phrased better to avoid the appearance of disrespecting a man deserving of so much better.

 

[JamesDillon]

Bidlack believes in something ultimately unprovable that has zero impact on our lives. None of us can prove he's wrong. In all other respects, he's a skeptic. Why take the title away from him because he's as fallible as the rest of us?


Delphi,

I have never suggested taking the title of "skeptic" away from Dr. Bidlack due to his irrational belief in God. My view is best expressed in my reply to Xin in this thread, that an individual can hold irrational beliefs but, on balance, apply critical reasoning and skepticism to most issues and thereby be properly called a skeptic, even if that label does not apply as to the specific irrational beliefs that they hold.

You're absolutely right that none of us, myself included, behave 100% logically, but isn't that the ideal to which we, as skeptics, aspire? Are we not justified in pointing out and criticizing faulty logic where we find it? Your fuzzy pink unicorns example is quite apt; if Bidlack had made a presentation at TAM defending his belief in fuzzy pink unicorns on the grounds that it gave him comfort to believe that they exist, would you really be objecting to my criticism of that view as vehemently as you are?