Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Skeptic Ginger]

To those who say 'yes': why? Or the longer version: why do you think that atheism is a better fit for a skeptic than a general agnosticism? Is there an inherent value that being atheist in approach has over being agnostic in approach for the hypothetical skeptic?

If you only take the purist approach that you are agnostic about invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti then you can make your case. The problem I have is threefold:

1) There is no evidence of gods so why entertain the idea in the first place? Why not just say there can always be new things we have yet to come across?

2) The current god definitions and descriptions defy everything we know about the Universe so far.

3) Not only is there no evidence of gods, there is a good case to be made that gods are man-made constructs. The evidence points to that. I see no reason not to draw conclusions from the available evidence. I draw conclusions about other things based on the evidence.

Once you take the "special" case out of god beliefs, there is no case for agnosticism.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are theistic agnostics.

I find making a distinction between 'belief' and 'knowledge' a bit strange, but eh, it happens.

I know a couple people I'd call intelligent skeptics, who nevertheless find magical worldviews to be useful; they acknowledge that these worldviews are not necessarily grounded in logic so much as feeling/intuition. For them, this is functional; the magical worldview is pleasant, gives things a certain amount of vibrancy, and (given the skeptical limits) doesn't interfere with their day-to-day life in any way. (These people aren't, for example, what I'd call 'superstitious' or the like.)....

I find a better description for this is a blind spot.

 

[Janot]

1) There is no evidence of gods so why entertain the idea in the first place? Why not just say there can always be new things we have yet to come across?

Could not one argue that this is a belief that something unknown can exist, and that searching for it is as much of a religous as scientific activity? Or is this just semantics? I only ask because the opening post talks of 'belief in god' and I'm not sure how a sceptic would define this.

 

[CFLarsen]

The question is:

Is it possible to be religious and not claim evidence of your god(s)?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Could not one argue that this is a belief that something unknown can exist, and that searching for it is as much of a religous as scientific activity? Or is this just semantics? I only ask because the opening post talks of 'belief in god' and I'm not sure how a sceptic would define this.

Of course many things exist we have yet to know about. It would be foolish not to 'believe' that. The problem is once you add a name and/or description to your belief, you are no longer merely saying "something unknown".

 

[Big Les]

Exactly - sceptics tend to give a free pass to religious people, those who are otherwise sceptical in particular, as long as they don't make any claims about their god having any measurable effect on the real world.

But isn't that still a claim, in a roundabout way? As skeptigirl says, of course there are many things we know little to nothing about - but why assign any of the historical baggage to these things? Why define them in the context of religion, with nothing but anecdotal evidence to do on? In any other context a sceptic would be called to task for this. It's all very well saying that it's not based on any rationality or falsifiability, but isn't that just a massive cop-out? You're still believing in something supernatural, without evidence, and as such any exhortation to a "woo" to stop doing likewise is pretty hypocritical.

I've never understood religion-exempting scepticism either, and see it as a bit of a proverbial "elephant in the living-room".

 

[CFLarsen]

Exactly - sceptics tend to give a free pass to religious people, those who are otherwise sceptical in particular, as long as they don't make any claims about their god having any measurable effect on the real world.

But isn't that still a claim, in a roundabout way? As skeptigirl says, of course there are many things we know little to nothing about - but why assign any of the historical baggage to these things? Why define them in the context of religion, with nothing but anecdotal evidence to do on? In any other context a sceptic would be called to task for this. It's all very well saying that it's not based on any rationality or falsifiability, but isn't that just a massive cop-out? You're still believing in something supernatural, without evidence, and as such any exhortation to a "woo" to stop doing likewise is pretty hypocritical.

Aye, there in lies the rub(adub): What is it, exactly, that is so supernatural?

I've never understood religion-exempting scepticism either, and see it as a bit of a proverbial "elephant in the living-room".

It's not religion-extempting. It's simply acknowledging that skepticism doesn't concern itself with non-testable claims.

 

[Big Les]

Aye, there in lies the rub(adub): What is it, exactly, that is so supernatural?

You know, the whole "deity" thing.

It's not religion-extempting. It's simply acknowledging that skepticism doesn't concern itself with non-testable claims.

I understand this from a third-person perspective, however the person holding that belief and making that implicit claim isn't themselves being very sceptical, are they?

 

[CFLarsen]

You know, the whole "deity" thing.

I agree that it is supernatural to say "I believe in (insert deity), because of [something that influences the natural world]".

But what is so supernatural about "I believe in (insert deity), but I don't claim any evidence"?

I understand this from a third-person perspective, however the person holding that belief and making that implicit claim isn't themselves being very sceptical, are they?

Yes, they are: They have realized that while it is a silly belief without any evidence, it comforts them.

 

[This is The End]

Being on the top can be a bit boring, perhaps leading people to want to believe in something more complex than them. Does it matter if it's aliens or fictional super-beings? Does it matter if the super-beings are outright fiction or sold as truth? Does it even matter if we don't have proof?

For instance we don't have any more or less proof of the X-Men being real than other religions deities, but we can be pretty sure neither are. On the other hand we don't know if alien life, more or less evolved than us, is real, but we can be pretty sure one or both are.

Aren't there varying levels of "no evidence"? Wouldn't it be better to specify if it is "no evidence" or "no solid OR circumstantial evidence"?

Couldn't it even be ranked in an order of crazy beliefs? From most crazy to least:

1: Believing in presented fictional super-beings.
2: Believing in religious super-beings.
3: Believing in extra-terrestrial super-beings.

1 and 2 only being different in the ratio of how many lies are used in the distribution. 3 actually having a morsel of evidence diluted with it's lies. So people who believe something like Tolkien is real would easily believe in religion or aliens, but the scale only goes one way (i.e. someone who believes in aliens would most likely still be hard pressed in believing in hobbits).

Perhaps people would prefer to believe in something more powerful than us so they have an excuse to not better themselves compared to each other. Is this more of the dreadful submission to dominance instinct?

To summarize in respect to the OP, there are varying levels and degrees of both skepticism and evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

Hmm, I would say that scepticism is a tool and that som people apply the tools to only certain thoughts. So while the ideal sceptic might be an atheist, some people are and some people aren't.

Most sceptics have areas they don't apply the tool to. Ideas like the benefits of the free markets, personal liberty and human rights for example.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

ImaginalDisc - Dowsing and astrology are testable, have been tested, and have shown no results. Therefore it is rational to conclude that they are false, or that their effect power is smaller than that measurable by the tests done. Not all theisms are testable, though, and one has to be agnostic about that which is unfalsifiable. That means basically you ignore both the possibility of it being true and it being false.

Untestable claims are mere sophism, but religions are seldom based solely on untestable claims. Prayer has no efficacy. Miracles have no basis.

 

[Big Les]

I agree that it is supernatural to say "I believe in (insert deity), because of [something that influences the natural world]".

But what is so supernatural about "I believe in (insert deity), but I don't claim any evidence"?

The mere existence of such a deity is by definition supernatural.

Yes, they are: They have realized that while it is a silly belief without any evidence, it comforts them.

But if they realise that, how can they be said to actually believe it?

 

[Damien Evans]

Rather than solve the problem posed by the OP perhaps we could just eliminate it by electing a god for atheists to honour!

I hereby nominate Ma'at, Egyptian goddess of Truth, Balance, Order.


Yeah! Go Ma'at!

Nay, I vote for Aphrodite! (hey, if we're going to honour a god, it may as well be a hot one!)

 

[Jekyll]

ImaginalDisc - Dowsing and astrology are testable, have been tested, and have shown no results. Therefore it is rational to conclude that they are false, or that their effect power is smaller than that measurable by the tests done. Not all theisms are testable, though, and one has to be agnostic about that which is unfalsifiable. That means basically you ignore both the possibility of it being true and it being false.

This is exactly the same as God. Belief in a non-interventionist God is the same as believing that Dowsing works, it just has a zero "effect power" (that jargon can't be correct).

I think Maatorc (not sure about the spelling) who hangs out on the forums actually believes this, so it's not just a stupid hypothetical.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

To me, being a skeptic means formulating opinions and thoughts based on critical and rational thinking, logic, facts, common sense...all unbiasedly and with complete openess and honesty.

This is the old question of whether someone labeling himself skeptic has to be a complete skeptic with regard to every subject. Your first reaction might be "of course," but then you're asking for an inquisition committee to investigate your life to make sure there's nothing lurking in the closets.

I see no advantage to inquiring into the level of skepticism of individual people, only in the subjects being discussed.

~~ Paul

 

[GreNME]

I'm going to try to get all my responses into one post. Try to bear with it.

It is as foolish to be agnostic about religion as it is to be agnostic about dowsing, astrology, and the Easter bunny, and for the same reasons.

Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Can you quantify it?

----

There are theistic agnostics.

This is true, and sort of what I'm getting at regarding the ability to have sufficient intellectual honesty while at the same time possibly holding a religious ideology. I think I may be coming at my argument at a disadvantage because I am not theistic, nor do I hold any religious belief, but I do see room for the intellectual honesty required to remain skeptical of subjects while still holding religious beliefs.

----

I do not understand the question since you can easily be agnostic and atheist. There is no contradiction. Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism with knowledge. I lack a belief in god(s), therefore I´m an atheist. Do I know for sure, like 100%, that there are no gods? No, I don´t and I don´t claim that, therefore I am an agnostic. That makes me an agnostic atheist, and after reading hundreds of posts regarding that topic on this forum, I´d say a lot of skeptics here would fall in that category.

Yes, but "most other people are" is neither logically sound nor necessarily intellectually honest. I also hold no religious belief and remain generally agnostic, but I think the distinction I am talking about regarding agnosticism (as opposed to atheism) and religion might be tangental to the original post. I think it's germane to the question, though, and a worthwhile distinction.

----

If you only take the purist approach that you are agnostic about invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti then you can make your case.

I don't see why such a case couldn't be made, though. Since neither invisible pink unicorns nor flying spaghetti (unless it's thrown) affects me, I don't see a need to expend any energy accepting or denying it. If it's brought up as an excuse, then it can be challenged to see if there is any testable measure. If none are present, then it doesn't work as an excuse.

The problem I have is threefold:

1) There is no evidence of gods so why entertain the idea in the first place? Why not just say there can always be new things we have yet to come across?

Being agnostic doesn't mean entertaining ideas arbitrarily.

2) The current god definitions and descriptions defy everything we know about the Universe so far.

The wording you use, whether intentional or not, leaves open a door for a dogma to replace religious (or theistic) dogma. That's my main problem with taking an absolutist stance. I agree about religion falling short of explanation of the universe now that we are able to explore and observe to such a great degree, but I tend to stop short of saying all religious ideologies 'defy' our growing scientific knowledge because as far as I am aware religion is not science.

3) Not only is there no evidence of gods, there is a good case to be made that gods are man-made constructs. The evidence points to that. I see no reason not to draw conclusions from the available evidence.

Please. My main hobby is lay study of ancient history. I don't argue with the first three sentences, but the last is no less absolutist that religious statements as I interpret it.

I draw conclusions about other things based on the evidence.

The trouble is that in most cases evidence is found to either prove or disprove something. When it comes to people's religious faith evidence or lack thereof doesn't always necessarily work that way. That doesn't mean that someone of faith can't be capable of the intellectual honesty to remain skeptical of subjects in sufficient quantities to be indistinguishable from anyone else in testing said subjects.

Once you take the "special" case out of god beliefs, there is no case for agnosticism.

And you don't find this statement at all similar to those of religious fundementalists? No offense, but replace a few words there and the sentence is exactly the kind Ray Comfort uses.

----

Untestable claims are mere sophism, but religions are seldom based solely on untestable claims. Prayer has no efficacy. Miracles have no basis.

Have you ever heard of the efficacy of placebo or suggestion? Any (social) scientist worth their salt recognizes the effectiveness of both.

----

I see no advantage to inquiring into the level of skepticism of individual people, only in the subjects being discussed.

I think I agree with this most. For example, I don't consider myself 'a skeptic'. I consider myself skeptical of a great many things when I have not seen, heard, or read about tests of their veracity, but I don't self-identify as a skeptic.

By the way: I am challenging the assumption that atheism is most desirable for skepticism not because I think there is any veracity to religious beliefs, but because I tend to generally see a large degree of intellectual snobbery take hold where religion is concerned and I find that tends to detract from the conversation.

 

[Bikewer]

A respected (but passed-on) friend of mine once said that the ultimate end of Protestantism must be atheism.....

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Have you ever heard of the efficacy of placebo or suggestion? Any (social) scientist worth their salt recognizes the effectiveness of both.

Firstly, please don't propagate a misunderstanding of the placebo effect. Double blind drug tests use placebos because there is a documented effect on the health of a patient when they believe they are receiving treatment. You know when I believe when I'm receiving treatment? When I'm receiving treatment. Do you understand the implications of the placebo effect? Real treatment is efficacious over and beyond the placebo effect which arises from receiving treatment at all.

Secondly, please try to find any evidence to support any religious claim. I would happily change my views in the face of evidence. In the entire span of human history, science has been amassing evidence to help us understand the natural word and at no point has the most parsimonious explanation been religious.

 

[GreNME]

Firstly, please don't propagate a misunderstanding of the placebo effect.

What the heck? You drew one hell of a conclusion from a single sentence.

Double blind drug tests use placebos because there is a documented effect on the health of a patient when they believe they are receiving treatment.

Um, bingo.

You know when I believe when I'm receiving treatment? When I'm receiving treatment. Do you understand the implications of the placebo effect? Real treatment is efficacious over and beyond the placebo effect which arises from receiving treatment at all.

Actually, "real treatment" depends on the condition being treated and can, at times, include the use of a placebo-like benign medicine or activity.

Secondly, please try to find any evidence to support any religious claim. I would happily change my views in the face of evidence. In the entire span of human history, science has been amassing evidence to help us understand the natural word and at no point has the most parsimonious explanation been religious.

I strongly suggest you avoid the "jumping to conclusions" bit with me. I have not, am not, and will not be arguing for or against anyone's religious beliefs.