Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Cleon]

I find it fascinating that so many people think they have the authority to decide who is and isn't a Skeptic (tm, apparently).

Speaking as unofficial representative for the skeptics who dare to harbor a belief in God, I will only say that we neither seek nor require your approval. You will still see us at TAM, you will still us working to promote the JREF and its goals--to say nothing of the Skeptics Society, CSI, NCSE, and the countless other organizations (foreign and domestic) that promote science, reason, and critical thinking.

If you don't agree with our beliefs, hey, that's fine. We're not asking you to. You won't find us claiming that we have evidence for our beliefs. You won't find us handing out tracts. And you definitely won't find us defending fundamentalists or Biblical literalism. We believe because we want to, that's all. Maybe that makes us "weak" in your eyes, but you know--I can live with that. I'd rather be "weak" than be arrogant enough to declare that people who don't agree with my opinion on the matter aren't really "Skeptics."

Martin Gardner is a skeptic. He believes in God.
Hal Bidlack is a skeptic. He believes in God.
I am a skeptic. I believe in God.

Deal with it.


And that's all I have to say about it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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.

You most certainly are, regardless of what you meant to say. The only reason to bring up the placebo when someone mentions evidence of religious claims is to try to fool people into thinking it is somehow relevant. When a drug is tested, it is tested to see if the results it yields are distinguishable from chance, given identical conditions. The point of a placebo is to establish a control with identical conditions as the treatment tested. Thus far, all investigations into prayer have found it yields results which are indistinguishable from what we expect from chance. The same is said for the ability of dowsers to find gold.

 

[-Fran-]

If you don't agree with our beliefs, hey, that's fine. We're not asking you to. You won't find us claiming that we have evidence for our beliefs. You won't find us handing out tracts. And you definitely won't find us defending fundamentalists or Biblical literalism.

But we do often find some of you arguing against other people who hold other beliefs that are not your beliefs, and yes, sometimes I do find that slightly hypocritical, or at least it doesn't make sense to me in some cases.

Personally I don't think you must be in a certain way to be "allowed" to call yourself a skeptic. You want to combine skepticism with a theistic belief it's OK with me. Obviously many of you do good things here. But why can't people who are not able to make these two things go together not ask and discuss about how you make it go together?

 

[Rasmus]

I find it fascinating that so many people think they have the authority to decide who is and isn't a Skeptic (tm, apparently).

What's wrong with trying to define one's terms then?

Speaking as unofficial representative for the skeptics who dare to harbor a belief in God, I will only say that we neither seek nor require your approval.

Good for you.

You will still see us at TAM, you will still us working to promote the JREF and its goals--to say nothing of the Skeptics Society, CSI, NCSE, and the countless other organizations (foreign and domestic) that promote science, reason, and critical thinking.

I must have missed those posts suggesting you shouldn't be doing any of these things. (I am sure they exist elsewhere, though.)

If you don't agree with our beliefs, hey, that's fine. We're not asking you to. You won't find us claiming that we have evidence for our beliefs. You won't find us handing out tracts. And you definitely won't find us defending fundamentalists or Biblical literalism. We believe because we want to, that's all.

That is precisely what those labelled as "woos" around here do, though: Believe something simply because it'd be nice if it was true.

Maybe that makes us "weak" in your eyes, but you know--I can live with that. I'd rather be "weak" than be arrogant enough to declare that people who don't agree with my opinion on the matter aren't really "Skeptics."

It's a label. It might mean different things to different people. I don't understand how scepticism is compatible with belief in dowsing, psychics or gods. How can you use the same procedures to decide that dowsing or psychics are false and religion x is true?

Martin Gardner is a skeptic. He believes in God.
Hal Bidlack is a skeptic. He believes in God.
I am a skeptic. I believe in God.

Deal with it.

So, it is okay for you to declare who is a sceptic, but not for everyone else?

Words mean things. We can certainly argue about what the word "sceptic" means. Maybe we won't be able to reach an agreement. But if we do, it should be relatively simple to see if, generally, a theist falls under that definition.

Can I be a vegetarian and still eat beef? (After all, I am not touching fish or seafood, pork, game or poultry.)

Would it be arrogant if someone pointed out to me that I am not a vegetarian simply because I do eat meat?

 

[Cleon]

But why can't people who are not able to make these two things go together not ask and discuss about how you make it go together?

That's not what people in this thread are doing. They're not "asking" any such thing. They are declaring that people who choose to believe aren't skeptics.

And that's arrogant horse manure, any way you slice it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's not what people in this thread are doing. They're not "asking" any such thing. They are declaring that people who choose to believe aren't skeptics.

And that's arrogant horse manure, any way you slice it.

Is it arrogant to point out that someone's behavior is inconsistent?

 

[ponderingturtle]

This has always bothered me. People claiming to be skeptics who hold out in their belief in god.

I postulate that someone can't be a skeptic and have any true belief in any god(s).

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.

If people apply that definition to skepticism, it seems impossible to truthfully come to any true belief in any god(s) since doing that would violate what being a skeptic is, because if they did, they couldn't come to the conclusion that any god(s) exist.

Any thoughts?

Cheers
DrZ

Why limit your self to religion? Just make it a skeptic can not hold any belief that is not supported by good evidence. So anyone with any stance on gun control or a host of other issues that don't have a clear evidential demonstrated right position is by definition not a skeptic.

Or you can just accept that skeptics can hold non skeptical positions.

 

[GreNME]

You most certainly are, regardless of what you meant to say.

You are showing bias, as evidenced in the following:

The only reason to bring up the placebo when someone mentions evidence of religious claims is to try to fool people into thinking it is somehow relevant.

No, I brought up placebo and suggestion to point out that your assertion of "works / doesn't work" is not as binary a conclusion as you seem to claim.

When a drug is tested, it is tested to see if the results it yields are distinguishable from chance, given identical conditions. The point of a placebo is to establish a control with identical conditions as the treatment tested.

Right, and the results are never binary. I already pointed out to you the use of placebo in medical practice, which you've summarily ignored.

Thus far, all investigations into prayer have found it yields results which are indistinguishable from what we expect from chance. The same is said for the ability of dowsers to find gold.

I've never argued otherwise. I find your constant assertion of this in a manner that assumes I have argued opposite what you say to be a bit heavy on the strawman fallacy. I've stated and maintained my lack of religious belief, and yet you continually come at me rhetorically as if I am holding some religious belief. I find the tactic a little bit on the ridiculous side.

 

[GreNME]

I find it fascinating that so many people think they have the authority to decide who is and isn't a Skeptic (tm, apparently).

Precisely.

 

[-Fran-]

That's not what people in this thread are doing. They're not "asking" any such thing. They are declaring that people who choose to believe aren't skeptics.

And that's arrogant horse manure, any way you slice it.

I wasn't declaring that, and I don't think all others were either, some might have been... And depending on what definition you give to the word 'skeptic' those who do might not be wrong... But personally I am unsure about the "right" definition.

For me it simply does not go together though, and that is not me being arrogant or declaring anything, that's me not understanding this.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

GreNME,

Why did you bring up the placebo effect?

 

[Cleon]

I wasn't declaring that, and I don't think all others were either, some might have been

From the OP:

I postulate that someone can't be a skeptic and have any true belief in any god(s).

 

[-Fran-]

From the OP:

From your post earlier:

That's not what people in this thread are doing. They're not "asking" any such thing. They are declaring that people who choose to believe aren't skeptics.

'People in this thread' is not the same as 'the OP'.

 

[rocketdodger]

Of course someone can be a skeptic and believe in god. A skeptic can even believe in all sorts of woo, and remain a skeptic. It just means that the amount of evidence they desire before they agree with something is at a lower threshold than others.

In that light, it is pretty pointless to try and differentiate oneself from others using the label "skeptic" because even the most idiotic juju-dogma eater is also a skeptic.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Of course someone can be a skeptic and believe in god. A skeptic can even believe in all sorts of woo, and remain a skeptic. It just means that the amount of evidence they desire before they agree with something is at a lower threshold than others.

In that light, it is pretty pointless to try and differentiate oneself from others using the label "skeptic" because even the most idiotic juju-dogma eater is also a skeptic.

Skepticism is the process of using evidence based inquiry to assess claims. A skeptic is a person who does this. How is "the most idiotic juju-dogma eater is also a skeptic?"

 

[GreNME]

GreNME,

Why did you bring up the placebo effect?

I already said in my last post: because what you claimed isn't correct in the "works / doesn't work" binary sense. You made an absolute statement and I was pointing out that it is not so absolute. The power of suggestion and subject-expectance are not as clearly defined as you seem to claim.

This has no bearing on whether prayer or faith or whatever works or not. Since I don't hold any such faith it won't work for me anyway. But that doesn't change that reality that, were I to come to a doctor insisting I need a medication to aleviate a condition, if the doctor prescribes a mild analgesic that is otherwise benign it does not mean that the application did not have some efficacy. I'm talking about a widely recognized and regularly discussed topic in the medical world, not some homepathic or 'alternative' medical practice that some snake-oil salesman is trying to sell. The AMA tends to conclude that medical professionals in the US must disclose when they are using placebo along with active medications, and that is for the safety of the patients as well as requiring ethical responsibility on the part of the doctor-- prescribing placebo for cases where a known remedy is the most likely treatment would be unethical and cause for removal from the practice of medicine.

Efficacy of drugs in double-blinds do not always require placebos, nor are placebos normally the only control in clinical trials. In reality most clinical trials involving placebos also include a control of non-treated or classically-treated individuals (depending on the condition), though published results as of the last decade or so usually only require listing the efficacy of drugs against one control, even though more than one may be used. As such, placebos are often listed against the efficacy of drugs because the idea is that a drug that displays results of significantly higher percentages than placebos lend more credence to the drug's efficacy than against non-treatment.

Placebo and suggestion aren't 'woo' at all, and dismissing them outright is the same intellectual snobbery as other statements being made.

 

[GreNME]

'People in this thread' is not the same as 'the OP'.

Do you need a list of relevant quotes to support the statement he made that I agree with?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I find it fascinating that so many people think they have the authority to decide who is and isn't a Skeptic (tm, apparently).

Speaking as unofficial representative for the skeptics who dare to harbor a belief in God, I will only say that we neither seek nor require your approval. You will still see us at TAM, you will still us working to promote the JREF and its goals--to say nothing of the Skeptics Society, CSI, NCSE, and the countless other organizations (foreign and domestic) that promote science, reason, and critical thinking.

If you don't agree with our beliefs, hey, that's fine. We're not asking you to. You won't find us claiming that we have evidence for our beliefs. You won't find us handing out tracts. And you definitely won't find us defending fundamentalists or Biblical literalism. We believe because we want to, that's all. Maybe that makes us "weak" in your eyes, but you know--I can live with that. I'd rather be "weak" than be arrogant enough to declare that people who don't agree with my opinion on the matter aren't really "Skeptics."

Martin Gardner is a skeptic. He believes in God.
Hal Bidlack is a skeptic. He believes in God.
I am a skeptic. I believe in God.

Deal with it.


And that's all I have to say about it.

Why not defend certain forms of creationism they are no more incompatible with skepticism than any theistic belief. All you have to do is decide that some supernatural agent(god, satan, ect) hid the real evidence and fabricated evidence for a old earth an evolutionary creation.

There is nothing with that belief that is remotely testable because the belief itself predicts its absence of evidence, so the only way to refute it is find positive evidence for a young earth.

Now very few creationists hold this belief stated as such, they think that the evidence is on their side, but a belief in YEC and biblical literalism all work perfectly is you add in conspiring supernatural agents.

So if you can be religious and a skeptic you can be a YEC creationist and Biblical literalist and a skeptic, provided you have the right sort of supernatural cover-up going on.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Placebo and suggestion aren't 'woo' at all, and dismissing them outright is the same intellectual snobbery as other statements being made.

I said no such thing about the placebo effect. I said that religious claims are groundless. You brought up the placebo effect. Why?

 

[-Fran-]

Do you need a list of relevant quotes to support the statement he made that I agree with?

What?

Cleon said he thought that all people in this thread are of the same meaning (a meaning he doesn't like) I simply pointed out that people are not all of the same meaning, and also that not all people fully agree with the opinion of the OP.