Can a Skeptic Believe in God? Responses to Panel Discussion

[I less than three logic]

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".

I believe bignickel made a good point here that I think may have been overlooked.

Can a skeptic examine the evidence available for Bigfoot and conclude that it doesn’t exist, then perform the same level of scrutiny for the evidence available for God and draw a different conclusion?

 

[WonderfulWorld]

Anyone want to list the names of people who believe in god(s) of any kind, but is also active, in the skeptical movement?

Here's some that come to my mind right away:

Martin Gardner
Hal Bidlack
Anthony Flew
Shmuley Boteach

Flew's position is new, inconsistent, and extremely difficult to nail down (he's modified it several times when challenged). Richard Dawkins's conclusion at TAM3 was that Flew has "lost it", and that does seem fair.

My definition of skepticism disallows the stating of ANY absolute position NOT based upon ANY evidence. The nonexistence of god is a conclusion - in its broadest sense - lacking ANY evidence.

Let's try an exercise: Substitute the words "little faeries dancing in my garden" for "god", and see how your position reads.

The nonexistence of little faeries dancing in my garden is a conclusion - in its broadest sense - lacking ANY evidence.

Notice that it sounds a good deal more silly, and not just because of my choice of words. The fact that there is no positive evidence for god and that the notion is arbitrary and outside the bounds of the natural world is reason enough to dismiss the notion until some evidence — any valid evidence — is presented. The human mind can conjure infinite fantasies, but that's no excuse to respect them. (Logically, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Atheists have no burden to disprove the existence of god. But I'm speaking of ordinary atheists, not the sort who claim that there is positive proof against the existence of god. The rule cuts both ways.)

I don't believe that a single metric measures intelligence in any meaningful way.

This is a straw-man, the result of popular misunderstanding about what "IQ" is. IQ (or "g", or whatever) is not measured by a single test. There are dozens of "IQ" tests, and they don't all measure the same thing -- some are broad-based, some look at the ability to see spatial relationships, some look at analogies, etc. All can be "normed" -- averages and standard deviations can be calculated, and an IQ assigned to any particular result -- but a single person can get a wide range of IQs by taking various tests. So, IQ is not a "single metric" in the sense you appear to mean. Perhaps the terminology — the way the term "IQ" is commonly used looks like a "single metric" — is partly to blame for the misunderstanding. Well, not "perhaps". Certainly.

By the way, Mensa will accept scores from a broad range of "normable" tests that are designed to measure intellectual aptitude, not all of which are even normed into an actual "IQ" (e.g., SATs within certain date ranges). There are other "high intelligence" groups besides Mensa, but I don't know what they'll accept and what they won't.

 

[CFLarsen]

Does anybody have Randi, or any other panel members', exact words of their conclusion (if they did indeed conclude) that a skeptic cannot believe in god(s)?

Buy the DVD.

Anyone want to list the names of people who believe in god(s) of any kind, but is also active, in the skeptical movement?

Here's some that come to my mind right away:

Martin Gardner
Hal Bidlack
Anthony Flew
Shmuley Boteach

Do any of these claim that their god is an interacting god?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Buy the DVD.

I'll take that under consideration..

Do any of these claim that their god is an interacting god?

You asked the question, why don't you answer it?

 

[Alliebubs]

You asked the question, why don't you answer it?

Are you kidding me? I was trying to refrain from having my post contain ad hominem language but, for the love of all that is HOLY, you think you're acting intellectually superior by being allegedly witty? It's ridiculous. There is no semblance of critical thought in this particular response of yours. I've remained silent during this discussion, partly because most of my views are being expressed quite articulately and cogently by other posters but, JESUS CHRIST, you are, quite possibly, the most annoying poster on here. Your responses that scatter and defile this thread are akin to the "I'm rubber, you're glue" comeback. And when's the last time you *should* use that response? Right. That's my point.

And, another thing. before you start flaming, let me save you the trouble: I'll post what I like, thanks; feel free to not reply.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Are you kidding me?

No.

If he is interested in Gardner, Flew, or others specific and personal beliefs, he'll have to ask them.

I was trying to refrain from having my post contain ad hominem language but,

You did very well.

, JESUS CHRIST, you are, quite possibly, the most annoying poster on here.

It's OK, I forgive you. You are welcome to use the ignore feature, or restrain from ad hominems.

 

[blutoski]

I believe bignickel made a good point here that I think may have been overlooked.

Can a skeptic examine the evidence available for Bigfoot and conclude that it doesn’t exist, then perform the same level of scrutiny for the evidence available for God and draw a different conclusion?

I think, yes, for the following reason: (using the one example of bigfoot, for simplicity)

• there's nothing about bigfoot that claims to violate known laws
• the bigfoot claim has several testable predictions
• those predictions are not met, despite sincere and exhaustive effort

Unfortunately, on the other hand, 'god' has claims that violate known working laws, and defy predictability, so cannot actually be tested conventionally.

The lack of Popperian testability is a different frustration than reviewing quality or quantity of positivist-style collaborating / supporting evidence.

The value of testability is that it allows disproof through contradiction. if A->B, ~B, therefore ~A. eg: if Abigfoot, then Bigfootscat. ~Bigfootscat, therefore ~Abigfoot.

Compare: if Agod -> Bgotoheaven... no test for Bgotoheaven, so conclusions are unclear.

What we *can* say is that, at least from a Popperian view, Agod->Bgotoheaven is not a scientific claim.

Which we already knew.

 

[Antiquehunter]

I just finished watching my TAM3 DVD's (freshly acquired from TAM4) and found the Richard Dawkins commentary to be quite relevant to this thread.

I'm not going to bore you with my synopsis of the topic - I'm sure many of you have already heard Dawkins' position. However - I would like to suggest that we narrow the definition of 'God' prior to moving forward with addressing the OP.

Are we referring to 'God' in the traditional religious sense (one who interacts / intervenes / a 'personal' God) a deist model (a God that does not intervene in the world as we know it) or Dawkins' notion of 'Einsteinian religion' - whereby one simply invokes the notion of 'god' because this notion poetically encompasses many of the scientific understandings we hold to be truths.

I'd suggest that Randi's comments that 'A skeptic cannot believe in God' probably refers exclusively to model #1 - and that Randi is somewhat comfortable with #2 and quite comfortable with #3.

 

[DSE]

For me the supernatural argument was always comes down to the "brain in a jar" argument. Sure, we may all be brains in a jar hooked up to computer simulations. And if the simulation is perfect, there is no way to tell. A perfect simulation would be completely undetectable and have no measurable influence on the world. But that's the point, if it really has no measurable influence whatsoever then there is no way to study it, no way to test it, and no way to learn from it.

If the simulation isn't perfect that's a different story. What if it *does* affect the world in tiny ways. In that case it would be rational for a small number of skeptics to question the idea that we are not brains in jars. They should try and find evidence and, if found, they should try to convince the scientific community. But just because there is a small chance doesn't mean that it makes sense for most people to believe it. Until there is some convincing evidence, the vast majority of skeptics should not believe it.

If supernatural forces exist they either have influence on the world or not. If they do, they there should be ways to test to see if they exist, and without evidence it doesn't make sense to believe in them. If they don't have influence on the world, then they don't matter and are essentially distractions what we can study and learn about.

So, can skeptics be believers? Sure, but probably the vast majority shouldn't be. I'm not saying that people can't silo their beliefs and choose not to be skeptical about certain things. Or that people that believe supernatural things can't be very skeptical when dealing with certain topics. These people are and have been invaluable to skeptical arguments and the world in general. But, I don't think you can be wholly a skeptic if you believe in supernatural things that don't have evidence to support them.

 

[bignickel]

I'd suggest that Randi's comments that 'A skeptic cannot believe in God' probably refers exclusively to model #1 - and that Randi is somewhat comfortable with #2 and quite comfortable with #3.

Please see my thread about Randi's comments in the Commentary thread. Jeff Wagg has indicated that Randi has a few thoughts to offer on this (as soon as he gets well enough that they'll let him near a computer... then: watch out world!)

 

[Penguin]

I think, given an exceptional experience, that belief in God can be co-existant with skepticism. If someone has a personal experience which they <truly> believe to be an encounter with the almighty, their prospective can't help but change. This happened to my father, who I would describe as an agnostic (modern def.) until he claims to have had such an experience. I have never had such an experience, but if one truly believes to have had one (rightly or wrongly), I can't see how one can't incorporate that into one's worldview.

 

[Fun2BFree]

I think, given an exceptional experience, that belief in God can be co-existant with skepticism. If someone has a personal experience which they <truly> believe to be an encounter with the almighty, their prospective can't help but change. This happened to my father, who I would describe as an agnostic (modern def.) until he claims to have had such an experience. I have never had such an experience, but if one truly believes to have had one (rightly or wrongly), I can't see how one can't incorporate that into one's worldview.

One does incorporate subjective single experiences into a worldview--one looks for confirmatory evidence -preferably as objective as possible---before incorporating such notions into a worldview...this is the utility of the scientific method...to paraphrase the great Richard Feynman -because I don't know the exact quote---The easiest person to fool is yourself"--scientific method helps us from fooling ourselves..

 

[Penguin]

One does incorporate subjective single experiences into a worldview--one looks for confirmatory evidence -preferably as objective as possible---before incorporating such notions into a worldview...this is the utility of the scientific method...to paraphrase the great Richard Feynman -because I don't know the exact quote---The easiest person to fool is yourself"--scientific method helps us from fooling ourselves..

(Assuming from the context of the rest of your paragraph that you mean "one does <not> incorporate...")

So events that happen only once can be safely ignored? It's hard (impossible) to apply the scientific method to non-repeating phenomena, but being hard to study doesn't preclude their existence. Should one of these events convince you of the existance of an almighty power (not sure what that would take - probably different for different people - but it's my story and I get to choose a single "given"), I can see a reasonable person accepting it. So given a single event in which a being convinced you it was the almighty, is it unreasonable to continue to believe that it still exists?

 

[snex]

(Assuming from the context of the rest of your paragraph that you mean "one does <not> incorporate...")

So events that happen only once can be safely ignored? It's hard (impossible) to apply the scientific method to non-repeating phenomena, but being hard to study doesn't preclude their existence. Should one of these events convince you of the existance of an almighty power (not sure what that would take - probably different for different people - but it's my story and I get to choose a single "given"), I can see a reasonable person accepting it. So given a single event in which a being convinced you it was the almighty, is it unreasonable to continue to believe that it still exists?

if the event is not repeatable, then you have to ask yourself, "is it more likely that my experience entirely destroys my previous worldview which has been based on repeatable observations, or is it more likely that my brain is playing tricks on me?"

 

[Beth]

if the event is not repeatable, then you have to ask yourself, "is it more likely that my experience entirely destroys my previous worldview which has been based on repeatable observations, or is it more likely that my brain is playing tricks on me?"

Not sure what you are getting at. Certainly, there are many people who would reject a singular experience that conflicted with their established worldview. However, many people are willing to accept the evidence of their own senses and subjective experiences as being legitimate (presuming they have no reason to doubt their senses - i.e. they aren't on drugs, sleeping, etc.) and are willing revise their worldview in accordance with the evidence as they perceive it. I believe they are usually called skeptics.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I think, given an exceptional experience, that belief in God can be co-existant with skepticism.

That's a question about the nature of evidence. For example lots of people claim to have seen a ghost - sometimes in groups. In those situations we can hardly expect them to be skeptical with each other even if we might be justifiably skeptical about their story.

Similarly, trying to convince someone that their own NDE was an hallucination is likely to be futile. (A.J.Ayer is a good example of this. As a lifelong logical positivist and world renowned atheist he announced after his NDE that he had seen the Supreme Being.)

The interesting thing is the issue about the word "skepticism" and how much it overlaps with materialistic atheism. That basically means is "skepticism" solely about testable things or does it apply to matters of faith as well?

Personally, I don't take any skeptic seriously unless they are also a materialistic atheist. As a personal believer in such things as psi, NDE's and the like, I would just rip them apart completely in a debate.

The central issue is about consciousness and you either believe it is an emergent property of neurology that (ceases to exist when you die) or you don't. It's as simple as that. Whether or not someone happens to believe that consciousness is limited to within the skull or that it has a low level of psi ability beyond the skull is purely academic.

As for Randi, in an interview that I got from P2P where he's talking about atheism he says:

"We don't have a "rain god" any longer, at least we in this civilisation as we know it don't have a raing god, because we understand quite thoroughly what causes rain. But we still have a God who promises us immortality and rewards and paradise and what-not. Things that I find untennable. I find them unacceptable. They are not necessary for my philosophy to explain the world as much as I possibly can. That doesn't mean there aren't mysteries that sort of beleaguer all of us. We'd all like to have answers to mysteries, but to invent deities in order to explain them I think is juvinile."

Does that exclude the religious from skepticism? No. And I think it's clear Randi doesn't exclude people who are religious from skepticism either. In that vein, I'm a skeptic in that I don't believe in such things as homeopathy, astrology, crystals or the like. I just, personally, can't take anyone seriously as a bona-fide skeptic if they're not a materialistic atheist.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[snex]

Not sure what you are getting at. Certainly, there are many people who would reject a singular experience that conflicted with their established worldview. However, many people are willing to accept the evidence of their own senses and subjective experiences as being legitimate (presuming they have no reason to doubt their senses - i.e. they aren't on drugs, sleeping, etc.) and are willing revise their worldview in accordance with the evidence as they perceive it. I believe they are usually called skeptics.

all people have every reason to doubt their senses if those senses report data that are discordant with what is currently known and that data cannot be reproduced. people who invent anthropomorphic deities that control the entire universe based on this one unrepeatable event are not being skeptical, by any definition of the term.

 

[Beth]

all people have every reason to doubt their senses if those senses report data that are discordant with what is currently known and that data cannot be reproduced. people who invent anthropomorphic deities that control the entire universe based on this one unrepeatable event are not being skeptical, by any definition of the term.

We'll just have to disagree on that one. I don't think that attributing an inexplicable experience to a common cultural conception of God is quite the same an inventing an anthropomorphic diety. Particularly if the experience is one that is similar to that of many other people. It is, rather, finding the evidence of one senses to be in concordance with the testimonial evidence of others. It then becomes quite reasonable for that person to believe in that God. It doesn't make them correct, but it doesn't make them unskeptical either.

 

[snex]

We'll just have to disagree on that one. I don't think that attributing an inexplicable experience to a common cultural conception of God is quite the same an inventing an anthropomorphic diety. Particularly if the experience is one that is similar to that of many other people. It is, rather, finding the evidence of one senses to be in concordance with the testimonial evidence of others. It then becomes quite reasonable for that person to believe in that God. It doesn't make them correct, but it doesn't make them unskeptical either.

there is absolutely zero logical connection between your inexplicable experience and your culture's idea of god. also, anything with "intelligence" or "consciousness" when you have no evidence to say it has them is being assigned them anthropomorphically.

 

[Beth]

there is absolutely zero logical connection between your inexplicable experience and your culture's idea of god. also, anything with "intelligence" or "consciousness" when you have no evidence to say it has them is being assigned them anthropomorphically.

Well, I was not speaking of any specific experiences I've had, but in a more general way. I disagree. Many people report such experiences, they have some consistency between people and they attribute it to god. Now, if I were to have such an experience, I would have to look at your POV rather skeptically. You haven't had the experience, but insist that you know all about it and what it may or may not be connected to.

Why should someone believe you and your interpretation of other people's testimony of such experiences which doesn't fit their own experiences? Now, given that one aspect of such an experience is often an "knowing" that it was God, the experience itself constitutes evidence to the individual who had it. Thus, if I were to have such an experience and then change my mind regarding the existence of God, I would be acting skeptically and changing my worldview based on new evidence as opposed to clinging to a worldview that was no longer sufficient to explain reality as I had experienced it.

Finally, I don't think they are inventing the anthroporthic deity.