Can a Skeptic Believe in God? Responses to Panel Discussion

[JamesDillon]

"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."

If my initial characterization of Dr. Bidlack's position seemed flippant, I apologize. I did not intend any disrespect toward him personally. However, I don't think that my characterization of his position was inaccurate, and no one in this thread has pointed to any specific inaccuracy in it.

 

[Serenity]

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?

I don't think that's a very good analogy, our history isn't replete with historical narrative pertaining to fuzzy pink elephants, but it is toward God. I write this as a non-believer.

 

[JamesDillon]

Serenity,

Can you elaborate on that? I don't understand why the cultural significance of God makes a difference.

 

[Serenity]

Serenity,

Can you elaborate on that? I don't understand why the cultural significance of God makes a difference.

All I'm saying is the fact that historical documents exist (Greek manuscripts for example) speaking of the existence of God gives slightly more credibility to that belief than believing in pink elephants.

 

[Walter Wayne]

What disappointed me about the panel discussion was the absence of certain people in the panel. At one point Hal was asked about who had commented that skepticism excluded the religious (I forget the exact phrasing of the question). Hal looked down the table and said, approximately, "Nobody on this panel, this year". That sums up the panel composition well, in that the people who were most responsible for the need for the discussion weren't there.

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.

...

Randi's conclusion bothered me as well, but principly because I thought it contradicted his discussion of Martin Gardner and the gist of his other comments. I plan to look this over when I receive the TAM IV CD, as my recollection was that his previous statement didn't argue his conclusion.

Walt

 

[JamesDillon]

All I'm saying is the fact that historical documents exist (Greek manuscripts for example) speaking of the existence of God gives slightly more credibility to that belief than believing in pink elephants.

Sure, but that's not Hal's argument. As I noted in my first post that discussed Dr. Bidlack's presentation, I would have actually preferred a theist who argues that a belief in God can be supported by the available empirical evidence. I might disagree with the theist's interpretation of that evidence, but at least such an argument would conform to the skeptical methodology. My primary criticism of Dr. Bidlack is that he conceded that there is no good evidence for a belief in God and that his belief is therefore irrational, but implicitly argued that it is nevertheless still justified because it gives him emotional comfort to think so.

 

[Walter Wayne]

All I'm saying is the fact that historical documents exist (Greek manuscripts for example) speaking of the existence of God gives slightly more credibility to that belief than believing in pink elephants.

Sure, but that's not Hal's argument. As I noted in my first post that discussed Dr. Bidlack's presentation, I would have actually preferred a theist who argues that a belief in God can be supported by the available empirical evidence. I might disagree with the theist's interpretation of that evidence, but at least such an argument would conform to the skeptical methodology. My primary criticism of Dr. Bidlack is that he conceded that there is no good evidence for a belief in God and that his belief is therefore irrational, but implicitly argued that it is nevertheless still justified because it gives him emotional comfort to think so.

I think that he also pointed out that he is rational about other beliefs. I thought his argument was that if you deny him the label skeptic you do so based on one belief he has that, while it may be based on aesthetics rather than logic, is untestable and has no affect on others. And you do so despite his many other qualifications.

Walt

 

[curt]

empirical nature of things

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.

I very much appreciate and respect Hal's insight to admit it. For me it comes down to the empirical nature of things. The belief that Hal articulated is simply not anything one can have evidence for or against. The more ladden a religious belief becomes with tangible components the more refutable it becomes. ID is a good example of that.

Before we get too pious about this, I wonder what other irrational beliefs us (hardcore) skeptics have? (maybe this should be another threat..)

 

[Antiquehunter]

Just chiming in here:

- I found Hal to be very brave in that he was facing an 80% - 85% non-believer crowd. He gave a very personal insight into some tough experiences in his life, and he was the FIRST to admit his beliefs are irrational. Of course - he also has woven a pretty clumsy excuse around his beliefs to protect them (and he admitted as much) but they are HIS beliefs, and he is free to take such a position - I'd say it is VERY tough to do. He was also a superb speaker.

- I was surprised at Randi's 'purist' skeptical stance. Technically, I think Randi is justifiably correct - but I was surprised at his position. From my perspective, I don't really CARE if someone considers themself to be a skeptic and holds belief in a deity. It is not MY position, but I also do not have to be 'right' about it. I'm quite content to sit back and wait for the empirical evidence to present itself and in the meantime be a "weak" atheist.

- The American Atheist woman (Ellen Johnson) is a bit deranged. Suggesting that Skeptics 'don't know where they stand on Bigfoot' was derogatory. I daresay her extreme/hard atheist position seems to be practically as faith-based as a theist/deist. I don't need to hear her speak again next year.

What I took away from the panel was a feeling of how happy I am that the Skeptics are a distinct organization from American Atheist. I found Ellen Johnson's abrasive approach and moral high-ground to be counter-productive. I do not feel that getting 'in your face' with the religious right is a workable position - perhaps we can win more with honey than with vinegar. And, looking at the results - are atheists 'winning' the debate? Sure - we've had some landmark cases succeed in court - but religion and irrational views are sweeping North America. Perhaps a change in approach from the traditional O'Hair / Ellen Johnson tactics is in order? In matters where individual beliefs are being challenged, Ellen is not going to win anyone over to listen to her side of the story - she's simply going to get shouted over / ignored.

-AH.

 

[ReFLeX]

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.)

Exactly. But gods haven't been material for a longgg time. Science has expatriated falsifiable gods.

 

[Alliebubs]

Just chiming in here:

- The American Atheist woman (Ellen Johnson) is a bit deranged. Suggesting that Skeptics 'don't know where they stand on Bigfoot' was derogatory. I daresay her extreme/hard atheist position seems to be practically as faith-based as a theist/deist. I don't need to hear her speak again next year.

What I took away from the panel was a feeling of how happy I am that the Skeptics are a distinct organization from American Atheist. I found Ellen Johnson's abrasive approach and moral high-ground to be counter-productive. I do not feel that getting 'in your face' with the religious right is a workable position - perhaps we can win more with honey than with vinegar. And, looking at the results - are atheists 'winning' the debate? Sure - we've had some landmark cases succeed in court - but religion and irrational views are sweeping North America. Perhaps a change in approach from the traditional O'Hair / Ellen Johnson tactics is in order? In matters where individual beliefs are being challenged, Ellen is not going to win anyone over to listen to her side of the story - she's simply going to get shouted over / ignored.

-AH.

Wholeheartedly agree. I didn't care for her contributions during the panel discussion one tiny bit. Abrasive is a very apt word to use for Ms. Johnson. I hope the JREF doesn't ask her to speak at a future TAM, because speakers of her ilk bring the skeptical movement when they seem as fundamental and fervent as the religious.

 

[writerdd]

Hi, I'm new here but I was at TAM4 and had a great time and thought this panel was interesting. I think that deists like Hal are really atheists who for whatever reason can't quite let go of the concept of "god". I mean, he said he doesn't even know what exactly the god that he believes in IS, so what does he really believe? I usually consider vague deists along with people who use the term god to represent a metaphor for love or for the good within people to be atheists who just won't come out. What worries me is that by giving credence to the concept of god, that deists are empowering fundamentalists and other religious extremists by associating themselves with believers rather than with realists.

I think a skeptic can be agnostic, and a skeptic certainly can suspect that there is or may be a god but to "believe" with a full assurance that there is a god is the opposite of what it is to be skeptical. It's no different than "believing" in bigfoot, and I think it's clear that if you are a true believer, you are not a skeptic. The two concepts seem to be mutually exclusive to me.

That's not to say that skeptics can't be religious, and participate in religous traditions and activities. I think Julia Sweeney covered this pretty well in her comments (although I am wondering if she'll outgrow that need after a while.)

 

[writerdd]

Wholeheartedly agree. I didn't care for her contributions during the panel discussion one tiny bit. Abrasive is a very apt word to use for Ms. Johnson. I hope the JREF doesn't ask her to speak at a future TAM, because speakers of her ilk bring the skeptical movement when they seem as fundamental and fervent as the religious.

I think that Ellen just didn't understand how we use the term skeptic. I don't know how much she familiarized herself with Randi's work or JREF before attending the conference. That was shortsighted on her part, but not, I think, a fatal flaw.

I personally thought it was an excellent mixture of presenters and I enjoyed Ellen's presentation very much. I think the variety of opinions and backgrounds of the presenters is what results in fact that the TAM meetings have more women and young people than many other nonbeliever conferences.

 

[Reager]

Wholeheartedly agree. I didn't care for her contributions during the panel discussion one tiny bit. Abrasive is a very apt word to use for Ms. Johnson. I hope the JREF doesn't ask her to speak at a future TAM, because speakers of her ilk bring the skeptical movement when they seem as fundamental and fervent as the religious.

Second that. Ms. Johnson didn't even appear to know where she was speaking. At one point on the panel she said something like, "Do you all refer to yourselves as skeptics?" Very unimpressive.

We should remember that, while membership may overlap, the atheist movement and the skeptical movement are distinct and have different goals. As skeptics we are interested in promoting a much broader (and much more important) agenda than mere atheism (or agnosticism or any form of non-belief). Our primary goal should be to encourage critical thinking and rationally, not to make more atheists.

Mike

 

[Alliebubs]

I think that Ellen just didn't understand how we use the term skeptic. I don't know how much she familiarized herself with Randi's work or JREF before attending the conference. That was shortsighted on her part, but not, I think, a fatal flaw.

I personally thought it was an excellent mixture of presenters and I enjoyed Ellen's presentation very much. I think the variety of opinions and backgrounds of the presenters is what results in fact that the TAM meetings have more women and young people than many other nonbeliever conferences.

As a young woman, I welcome my inclusion in a group such as TAM/JREF, because, as you've stated, our representation in "other nonbeliever conferences" (and I'll add the skeptical movement in general) might be underwhelming. And I certainly did appreciate her efforts at attempting a lecture (but, in my opinion, ended up with a narrative-style presentation, much like Shermer, and I didn't really care for both). I agree with you, in that Johnson didn't really know how to use the word skeptic. So, wouldn't that undermine her credibility to participate in a panel discussion about skeptics and God? I'm not saying she wasn't well-versed in her own subject, but I just felt her inclusion in the panel wasn't necessarily needed, since she obviously didn't do the "homework", if you will, on the skeptical movement, or what the label "skeptic" means.

I don't know how much she familiarized herself with Randi's work or JREF before attending the conference. That was shortsighted on her part, but not, I think, a fatal flaw.

I disagree. I think coming unprepared illustrates, not only shortsightedness, but a lack of respect for her audience. Compare and contrast her with Dennett, or Hitchens, or even Porco. Mind you, Porco was a bit verbose and went WAY over time but, she still knew her audience and, had she organised her lecture a bit better, I'm sure she would've tied in the political angle a bit more tightly. Still, I enjoyed her, and most of the other speakers, far better than Johnson.

 

[Alliebubs]

We should remember that, while membership may overlap, the atheist movement and the skeptical movement are distinct and have different goals. As skeptics we are interested in promoting a much broader (and much more important) agenda than mere atheism (or agnosticism or any form of non-belief). Our primary goal should be to encourage critical thinking and rationally, not to make more atheists.

Mike

Thank you. The encouragement of critical thinking/rationality/logic should be the goal. As an atheist, I'm not out to "make more atheists" but, rather, promote critical thinking about the evidence available regarding the existence of God. I do think, however, once one does analyse the situation, I feel that atheism is the only explanation. But, I emphasise that this is MY position on God, and I am NOT trying to convert. I really do wish for the promotion of rational thinking among the masses. Again, my issue with Dr. Bidlack was just trying to wrap my mind around his methodology in coming to believe in a supreme being. As a former Catholic, I understand the "comfort" that one can feel in surrendering to a higher power. But, once I began to think and truly assess the situation, believing in God just didn't do it for me. Anyway... yes. Johnson was not impressive.

 

[Reager]

I disagree. I think coming unprepared illustrates, not only shortsightedness, but a lack of respect for her audience.

Which, I believe, is indicative of someone who is only interested in promoting their own agenda. That's not to say another leader of the "atheist movement" wouldn't have been more informed or prepared, but it illustrates the point that we cannot take for granted that all atheists are skeptics (and vice-versa) and are potential or even desirable allies.

Mike

 

[Fun2BFree]

Wholeheartedly agree. I didn't care for her contributions during the panel discussion one tiny bit. Abrasive is a very apt word to use for Ms. Johnson. I hope the JREF doesn't ask her to speak at a future TAM, because speakers of her ilk bring the skeptical movement when they seem as fundamental and fervent as the religious.

Oh please! ..and Penn Jillette and Paul Provenza were soft and cuddly and conciliatory to religious ideas? C'mon--they were just more entertaining -that is where Ellen Johnson failed...although some of her stuff like the Tonight show clip--were intriguing and entertaining...

Can "a skeptic" do such and such..? The evidence is skeptics can do lots of things.

Is believing in a god a "skeptical" approach? I would argue basically -no. But it all depends on how belief is defined...the more subjective the claim- the less evidence is needed to justify the "belief"--the more objective form the belief takes the more objective evidence should be required to "inspire" that objective outcome...so if you believe that you will go to heaven and have 72 virgins--but you gotta die to do it...there is a definite imbalance in the objective/subjective scale that makes the needle fall out of the skeptic range...

I again am doubtful how truly comfortable this belief in God makes people...just saying that it does is not much evidence....some athletes will claim that eating chicken makes them a better ballplayer--it makes them "feel" like they are better- so they perform better---they say...this may not bear up under closer scrutiny...this is not to deny the power of belief...the best example of this I can think of is Roger Bannister---it was "believed" before he broke the 4 minute mile that it was impossible...nobody had done it...then very quickly after he showed it possible--lots of people were able to do it...the only thing that changed that fast was belief...

My question is how truly comforted god-believers are--I don't see that much comfort demonstrated in objectively observable ways that is any improvement over nonbelievers...hence I understand JamesDillon's questioning...

and come on --won't anyone else chime in with me that Jamy Ian Swiss was a microphone hogging moderator?

 

[Alliebubs]

Oh please! ..and Penn Jillette and Paul Provenza were soft and cuddly and conciliatory to religious ideas? C'mon--they were just more entertaining -that is where Ellen Johnson failed...although some of her stuff like the Tonight show clip--were intriguing and entertaining...

Exactly. The difference between entertainers like Penn Jillette and Paul Provenza and supposed academics/experts is that the former is meant to entertain and laugh; the latter is meant to illuminate and educated. That is a key difference, and why I specifically pointed to Ms. Johnson's lacklustre presentation, and not to the two comics.

 

[CFLarsen]

If Randi believes that, I guess he forgot about Martin Gardner, who believes in god, and basically started the modern skeptical movement.

Randi actually mentioned Martin Gardner during the discussion and used him as an example of a skeptic whose belief in God is based on emotional factors rather than rational argument.

The point being that since Gardner doesn't claim evidence of his god, Randi hasn't got a problem with it.

"Evidence".