Can a Skeptic Believe in God? Responses to Panel Discussion

[Beleth]

I can't see the problem with induction and how exactly it removes its self from evidence?

There's no problem with induction. But induction is not evidence.

Not true. Other than extremely weak evidence, we have to believe in (at least the traditional form of) God.

Which traditional form? And why do we have to?

To then claim that because the existance of a supernatural being is beyond what can possibly be proven/disproven means that to believe in something without evidence is now ok... is illogical.

Strawman. I'm not saying that believing in just anything without evidence is okay; I'm saying that believing in things that by their very nature are impossible to observe is just as rational as not believing in them.

The most logical thing to do (imo) is to first and foremost be agnostic, say 'we cannot know one way or the other' and then secondly to be atheist to the point of almost infinite improbability because no evidence is a reason to not believe.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Besides, as Stimpy pointed out to me at dinner one night at TAM4, Deists are atheists, if you use the original meaning of the word "Theist," which is one who believes in a personal God Who interferes with the workings of the universe.

 

[TheChadd]

Which traditional form? And why do we have to?

lmfao I... missed the word 'nothing'... I was saying we have nothing to believe in the traditional form of god.

I'm saying that believing in things that by their very nature are impossible to observe is just as rational as not believing in them.

I didn't say 'just anything' I said that to believe in something without evidence is 'now' ok (implying from my earlier words in the sentence that now would mean given the situation that we have accepted something cannot be proven/disproven).

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes - However while we have no evidence of absence.. when you have no evidence at all you cannot draw any conclusions. So first of all you have to be ultimately agnostic, then use what knowledge we have to point us toward better conclusions. Now, as I said better I have no real issue with deists... my issue is more with the more traditional view of 'God' of which I believe you can use the evidence which we do have to point us in the right direction.

 

[Beleth]

We've already given you plenty of examples of "somethings" other than direct observation that count as evidence for the purpose of inductive reasoning, all of which fall into the broad and legitimate category of circumstantial or indirect evidence. A blood sample containing the HIV virus is good evidence that the rest of the donor's blood is infected with HIV. Craters on the light side of the moon are good evidence that the dark side of the moon will also have craters. Fresh animal tracks are good evidence that an animal has passed by recently, in the direction in which the tracks are pointed.

That's why I said that these things need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. A (random) blood sample is a direct observation. The near side (not the light side) of the moon is not a random sample, and as I have pointed out the far side of the moon looks very little like the near side. And while fresh animal tracks are indeed good evidence that an animal has passed by recently, they are not evidence that a particular kind of animal has passed by recently... otherwise, we'd have conclusive proof that Bigfoot exists.

I think you may also be making the error that a logically warranted conclusion must be free of all doubt.

I'm just being a skeptic...

 

[TheChadd]

we'd have conclusive proof that Bigfoot exists.

Different claims require different levels of proof.

nd as I have pointed out the far side of the moon looks very little like the near side

Well I imagine perhaps analogies were presented about the moon and our planet and other planets we were able to observe.

I'm just being a skeptic...

It's great but I think while we need to be mindful of these notions we still need some sort of grounding.

 

[JamesDillon]

A (random) blood sample is a direct observation.

No, it isn't. It is a direct observation of the blood sample actually on the microscope slide. That's what "direct" means. The extrapolation from the blood sample to form conclusions about the rest of the individual's blood is an example of valid inductive reasoning.

The near side (not the light side) of the moon is not a random sample, and as I have pointed out the far side of the moon looks very little like the near side.

What does that have to do with anything? Once again, evidence need not be conclusive, it need only be probative. Based on what we know about the light side of the moon, we can form a well-founded belief, on the basis of inductive reasoning, as to what the dark side must be like. The fact that our belief is imperfect because of insufficient data does not undermine its legitimacy.

And while fresh animal tracks are indeed good evidence that an animal has passed by recently, they are not evidence that a particular kind of animal has passed by recently

What are you talking about? Deer tracks are evidence that a particular kind of animal, namely a deer, has passed by recently. Dog tracks are evidence that a dog has passed by. And so on.

otherwise, we'd have conclusive proof that Bigfoot exists.

No, we wouldn't. Once again, evidence need not be conclusive, it need only be probative. Bigfoot "tracks" are evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. However, other facts, such as the fact that the tracks were made by a person in a Bigfoot costume, provide evidence to the contrary.

I'm just being a skeptic...

No, you're not "just" being a skeptic. Skeptics must realize that there is no such thing as a doubt-free conclusion, even in cases of direct observation. Hume made this point quite persuasively.

 

[Alliebubs]

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

Right, exactly. As JamesDillon pointed out earlier, "Ellen Johnson is the head of a special-interest organization whose raison d'etre is to advocate for the interests of atheists." She is mainly speaking on behalf of her own agenda. And I specifically had no problem with that. I just felt her presentation even lacked the charisma that Strossen exhibited during her speech, which made the lecture even more unremarkable. Granted, she did pique my interest in learning more about Madalyn Murray O'Hair, but that's a credit to the subject matter, and not the speaker. Ultimately, my problem with Johnson was her inclusion on the discussion panel when she clearly had NO idea what she was talking about when referring to skeptics or the skeptical movement.

 

[Fun2BFree]

Beleth- your argument would support the ID and creationist viewpoint...there is no direct observation of evolution (okay now there is-but even before that there was plenty of EVIDENCE to support evolution-none of it direct observation of evolution just lots of independent circumstantial stuff all pointing in the same direction)

so by your twisted and mistaken notion you would conclude that it was reasonable to believe or not believe in the fact of evolution...

that is just silly.

Not flaming...just pointing out that your argument about induction and evidence remains absurd.

 

[bignickel]

Yipes, already this monster has gone to 5 pages in length.

As for myself, the question only becomes important if you fail to nail down what a skeptic is.

If a skeptic is a position, with a series of litmus tests ('do you believe in bigfoot? if so, you're not a skeptic' 'do you believe in accupuncture? if so, you're not a skeptic' and so forth), then you can easily toss 'do you believe in God' on there, and promptly toss out anyone who says yes.

Problem is, skepticim isn't supposed to be about a position, it's supposed to be about a set of methods for finding knowledge. If you start tossing people because of their beliefs, then you are doing exactly what out opponents have accused us of all along: turned scepticism into a belief system.

Now, I've always viewed a 'skeptic' as someone who espouses and promotes skepticism. As I've stated before, everyone on the planet uses skepticism at one time or another. So, with that, can a skeptic believe in God? Heck yeah. He or she could even believe in Bigfoot; the evidence just might be convincing enough (or them, but not for most of us, I warrent).

The question of 'can a skeptic believe in suchandsuch' only leads to dogma, which I thought we were not about. I hope that most of us aren't about it.

Besides, its completely the wrong question. It's not "can a skeptic believe in God"; a better question is "can a skeptic be consistent in his or skepticism and still be a theist". The Deists are not the enemy of science here folks; most of our problems are coming from those who are enforcing their religious will on us with bans on stem cell research, creationism in the schools, death threats over intellectual curiousity and research, etc ad infinitim ad nausiam.

 

[IllegalArgument]

I think Shermer had a very valid point, think of science or skepticism, as a verb not a noun.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I think Shermer had a very valid point, think of science or skepticism, as a verb not a noun.

Shermer can think of skepticism however he likes, but dictionaries have it as a noun.

 

[IllegalArgument]

Shermer can think of skepticism however he likes, but dictionaries have it as a noun.

Maybe we need to change that.

 

[ReFLeX]

As for myself, the question only becomes important if you fail to nail down what a skeptic is.

My neurobiology text:

Anyone can see similarities among humans, apes, and monkeys, but some people believe that humans are far too different from monkeys and apes to have an ancestor in common with them. These skeptics have reasoned that the absence of a "missing link," or intermediate ancestor, further argues against the possibility of common descent.

It doesn't outright say that the "skeptics" in question are creationists, although the text goes on to say that there are so many fossils on record as to require entire books dedicated to documenting them. Unless there are people denying common descent for scientific reasons that I'm not aware of, then that's an ironic use of the word 'skeptic.'

 

[JamesDillon]

Shermer can think of skepticism however he likes, but dictionaries have it as a noun.

As I noted in the opening post in this thread, I think that what Shermer was getting at is that skepticism is defined by methodology, by the process of critical thinking that we aspire to apply when forming beliefs, rather than by the actual content of beliefs. And I think he's absolutely right about that, which is why a skeptic can, in theory, believe in God or even in creationism.

 

[writerdd]

It makes no difference whether some people are lying or whether the rest of the people are consistent in their feelings: something we call love still exists. Meanwhile, we haven't defined god, so we cannot tell whether it exists.

~~ Paul

The current issue of National Geographic has a very interesting article about the physiological causes and states of love. Worth checking out by anyone who is truly interested in the topic. Their brief synopsis says "Learn about the lust, romance, attachment, and loss that can define love." It doesn't do the article justice.



Donna

 

[shinsyotta]

Sorry, I missed the panel discussion. Had to rush to see "KA", which sucked compared to other Cirque shows. Anyway...

I think a skeptic can believe in God or god or gods in the same sense that I believe a skeptic can believe in UFOs, homeopathy, etc. However, when somebody makes or accepts a claim that such and such is true, he/she is no longer a skeptic.
What I mean to say is that the belief Hal seemed to be talking about was a "living in hope that it's true" kind, not an "I'm 100% sure that it's true and nobody can convince me otherwise" kind.
I might live in hope that aliens will take me up in their spaceship, acting in preparation for the day they do, but still recognise that there is no evidence that there is, that I may be wrong and that in all likelihood it will never happen.
I suppose that you either accept or reject this position based on how much you want your actions and beliefs to be aligned with reality.

 

[shinsyotta]

Seems to me that the JREF should try to include as many people as possible. If a person self-defines as a skeptic, then at least he or she tries to approach the world skeptically as well as he or she is able.
I think Hal deserved a good deal of applause because he opened up- something we skeptics should do more. However, I was surprised that other, much more informative speakers did not get the standing ovation given to Hal.
I think that the JREF attracts people because we can critically and intelligently discuss topics that may or may not be PC. This is a good topic, but I don't think it's fair to conclude that a skeptic can't believe in god because Hal obviously does and is a critical thinker for the most part.
That said, I am with Dawkins. There is no god... that's how I live my life.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What if we ask whether a critical thinker can believe in god? Because the term critical thinker is more like a verb, it becomes clearer that a person can be a critical thinker on some subjects and not so much on other areas. In fact, it allows the person to claim to be thinking critically about god and then present his thoughts for evaluation. Or, it allows him to agree that he is not applying critical thinking to the subject at all, because he is treating it emotionally.

Unless you're the sort of person who believes in skeptic licensing, I would suggest we allow for a spectrum of critical thinkers, lest we shoot ourselves in the collective foot over this issue.

~~ Paul

 

[Darat]

Shermer can think of skepticism however he likes, but dictionaries have it as a noun.

The English language dictionary has it defined as:

OED Online SE
1. Philos. The doctrine of the Sceptics; the opinion that real knowledge of any kind is unattainable.

2. Sceptical attitude in relation to some particular branch of science; doubt or incredulity as to the truth of some assertion or supposed fact. Also, disposition to doubt or incredulity in general; mistrustfulness; sceptical temper.

3. Doubt or unbelief with regard to the Christian religion. Cf. SCEPTIC B. 3.

 

[Beleth]

No, it isn't. It is a direct observation of the blood sample actually on the microscope slide. That's what "direct" means.

And where did the blood come from? Directly from the body. And it was then observed. Direct observation.

The extrapolation from the blood sample to form conclusions about the rest of the individual's blood is an example of valid inductive reasoning.

I never said it wasn't.

Once again, evidence need not be conclusive, it need only be probative. Based on what we know about the light side of the moon, we can form a well-founded belief, on the basis of inductive reasoning, as to what the dark side must be like. The fact that our belief is imperfect because of insufficient data does not undermine its legitimacy.

I never said it did. But evidence and reason are two sides of the coin of conclusion, and reason is simply not evidence. You seem to be saying that everything that leads us to a conclusion is evidence by definition, when it is not.

Bigfoot "tracks" are evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

But are they enough to base a conclusion on?

However, other facts, such as the fact that the tracks were made by a person in a Bigfoot costume, provide evidence to the contrary.

And how do we collect such evidence?
Direct observation.

No, you're not "just" being a skeptic. Skeptics must realize that there is no such thing as a doubt-free conclusion, even in cases of direct observation. Hume made this point quite persuasively.

Who said anything about a doubt-free conclusion?

My point is this. I have already said it above, but I will say it again here.
Reason is not evidence. Evidence is evidence. And evidence is gathered through direct observation. Once you have evidence, you can apply reason to it to form a conclusion. But you can't call reason "evidence".

 

[Beleth]

Beleth- your argument would support the ID and creationist viewpoint...there is no direct observation of evolution (okay now there is-but even before that there was plenty of EVIDENCE to support evolution-none of it direct observation of evolution just lots of independent circumstantial stuff all pointing in the same direction)

Everything changed the minute you typed "okay now there is". Before there was evidence of evolution -- before someone observed how much dinosaur pelvises looked like bird pelvises, for instance -- evolution was indeed an unfounded conclusion. But as soon as there was that kind of directly-observed evidence, evolution became a serious hypothesis. Then evolution went on to predict what we might see if we experimented, and when those predictions came true, evolution became a full-fledged scientific theory. And that's as good as science gets.

so by your twisted and mistaken notion you would conclude that it was reasonable to believe or not believe in the fact of evolution...

that is just silly.

Not flaming...just pointing out that your argument about induction and evidence remains absurd.

Not flaming, but yes, your misunderstanding of my argument is indeed absurd. Good thing I didn't say it!