Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Yoink]

This thread seems to mostly consist of people talking past each other because they're using the terms in play differently.

The chief problem lies in the use of the term "Skeptic"--I think it is smuggling in a restrictive (and problematic) definition: "somebody who is universally and consistently skeptical." Would somebody who is universally and consistently skeptical be able to maintain a belief in God? No. I don't think anybody here would be likely to debate that proposition for very long.

So what if we rephrase the question more narrowly: "when someone believes something without any supporting evidence, are they being skeptical?" Would anybody care to defend a "yes" answer to that question? If not, then all of the theistic skeptics in this thread who say "I am a skeptic because I accept that there is no evidence for my belief in God" should also accept that what they're really saying is "I'm usually skeptical, but when it comes to God I'm not."

And that, then, prompts a third question: "Is it possible to be universally and consistently skeptical"? Hume thought not (pyrrhonism is the term for universal skepticism, and he thought that such a person would be rightly expelled from society). So, if Hume was right, what does it mean to be a "true Skeptic"? Surely nobody is going to say that Hume wasn't a skeptic? So, if we accept that a skeptic is somebody who is skeptical about most things, or as a rule, then we can accept that there can be skeptics who believe in God. But we should also accept that their belief in God is not consistent with their habitual skepticism.

So:

1/ It is impossible to be an "absolute" Skeptic.

2/ If the label "skeptic" is valid of anybody, it will be valid of people who believe things that they cannot prove.

3/ Some people who may validly be labeled "Skeptic" will believe in God (without proof).

4/ Such people will be holding a belief which they choose not to subject to their normal skeptical practice (i.e., they are not being "skeptical" in this instance).

5/ To apply skepticism to religion logically entails atheist conclusions (please note that "agnosticism" was a term invented in the C19th as a polite synonym for "atheist"--it does not describe a logically distinct position from atheism).

Now: does anybody disagree with any of these 5 propositions?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Wrong again. It displays no evidence of the causes it claims to have.

Causes of what? It does nothing, ergo there is no need to seek a cause. That bears repeating. Prayer does nothing.

So, are you now admitting you are arguing that religion plays the role of science?

I'm asking you a question. How about you answer it rather than playing amatuer psychoanalyst?

 

[GreNME]

So:

1/ It is impossible to be an "absolute" Skeptic.

2/ If the label "skeptic" is valid of anybody, it will be valid of people who believe things that they cannot prove.

3/ Some people who may validly be labeled "Skeptic" will believe in God (without proof).

4/ Such people will be holding a belief which they choose not to subject to their normal skeptical practice (i.e., they are not being "skeptical" in this instance).

5/ To apply skepticism to religion logically entails atheist conclusions (please note that "agnosticism" was a term invented in the C19th as a polite synonym for "atheist"--it does not describe a logically distinct position from atheism).

Now: does anybody disagree with any of these 5 propositions?

Only with number five. When the term was developed is irrelevant to its connotation today. It has a distinction in that one can be either theist or atheist and still claim agnosticism.

Other than that, I'm in agreement with you.

 

[GreNME]

Causes of what? It does nothing, ergo there is no need to seek a cause. That bears repeating. Prayer does nothing.

That is a false statement. It does the same thing as suggestion and placebo.

I'm asking you a question. How about you answer it rather than playing amatuer psychoanalyst?

How about you stop making wild accusations at me?

I already said, religion is not science and science is not religion. They are separate realms. So, unless you are now admitting that you do not agree with this (even though you said you did) then your question makes no sense. Which is it? Do you agree or not?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That is a false statement. It does the same thing as suggestion and placebo.

I'm not going to bother with this any longer.

How about you stop making wild accusations at me?

I already said, religion is not science and science is not religion. They are separate realms. So, unless you are now admitting that you do not agree with this (even though you said you did) then your question makes no sense. Which is it? Do you agree or not?

Religions make claims. Those claim can and should be treated just like any other claims.

 

[GreNME]

Religions make claims. Those claim can and should be treated just like any other claims.

Religion is not a science. By what science do you determine qualia?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Religion is not a science. By what science do you determine qualia?

You used the word "qualia."



I need an epinephrine shot now.


Please, define "qualia."





Ok, what does "Religion is not a science" mean? All testable claims should be evaulted equally. What makes religion special?

 

[Yoink]

Only with number five. When the term was developed is irrelevant to its connotation today. It has a distinction in that one can be either theist or atheist and still claim agnosticism.

Other than that, I'm in agreement with you.

1/ If I say "I have no evidence to suggest that there is any such animal as the Loch Ness Monster, therefore I do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster" am I "agnostic" about the Loch Ness Monster or the equivalent of "atheist" about it (e.g. "amonsterist"?)?

2/ Is someone who says "I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is any such animal as the Loch Ness Monster, but I believe it must exist" being skeptical in that case?

ETA: (oops, I left of an important third question): 3/ If someone says "I have no evidence to suggest that there is any such animal as the Loch Ness Monster, therefore it is utterly impossible that any such animal could ever have existed or ever be proved to exist" are they being "skeptical"?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, as it requires a definition of skeptic to be defined in such a way.


He hasn't made any attempt to define skeptic at all, only tell others that they can't define it so that theists are excluded.

Whoa...what's with this "define a skeptic"?

What definition do you use?

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

A reasoned response to a kilt salesman. Well said, Paul.

@ The OP and those who support the position he proposed in his kilt sales pitch

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

See Cleon's suggestion that you deal with it.

@ Ranillon: "skepticism is a method."



Pith and truth, combined.

DR

 

[The Atheist]

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

Used to bug the hell out of me, too. That's why the decision was made to resurrect the now-redundant "sceptic" and use it to signify a person who holds no unsupported beliefs. Accordingly, there are no christian sceptics, no homeopathy believers, no Qi, no Vishnu, no paranormal beliefs at all, including such fantastic propositions as "free will" (in the biblical sense).

However, that isn't yet widely accepted, so let's get to it!

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

As you're finding out, that isn't universally recognised either. I agree with you 100% though, which is why I made that decision.

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.

Bingo!

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.

God-boy moderator on a skeptics forum; QED.

To say you don't have evidence for your beliefs is an outrageous lie. The evidence is 2000 years of christianity and a proliferation of christian churches. Not to mention 2000 years of biblical study, theological statements and changing beliefs - or maybe, you still believe that witches should be hung and heretics tortured. Without that historical evidence, you'd be down on your knees worshipping a graven idol, the sun, or some such other equally-absurd belief as the one with a dead Jew running the universe in partnership with his old man and a see-through bloke.

That's why I say skepticism is only a method for investigating claims, not a set of dogmas that any "good" skeptic should believe in.

Correct.

However, it's quite plain that once those principles are even lightly applied to the invisible being, he disappears very quickly. This isn't Occam's Razor we're talking about here, this is Russell's teapot; an element of utter absurdity. Even with something as silly as astrology, there are stars and constellations people can see. Religion doesn't even have that.

All the god-children need to do to prove whether they are capable of using any form of scepticism where the sky-daddy is concerned is use scepticism on one simple example:

Which human was the first one to have a soul?

Why did his parents go to hell?

The end.

I can't speak for the OP, but I believe the assertion is that skeptical inquiry logically necessarily implies atheism if applied to religious claims, rather than proposing it as a type of dogma.

See - 100% correct. Sometimes, even you and I agree. That should sum it up, but doesn't. Come on, mate, bury the hatchet and come on over to "woo-free" scepticism!

The argument's a no-brainer.

I won't suggest that proves the brain level of some people.

This thread seems to mostly consist of people talking past each other because they're using the terms in play differently.

Disagree entirely and I did read it all.

It's about one side suggesting that there must be a definition of a "pure skeptic" before the line can be drawn, while the other is making sensible, irrefutable statements.

The point made by Imaginal Disc and others is very, very straightforward:

If you use sceptical enquiry to look at religion, it fails.

If you fail to apply scepticism there, there's little point applying it elsewhere.

And it isn't like some minor, irrelevant belief we're discussing, it's The Big One - three-quarters of the planet live their lives [ostensibly] to the tune of a sky-daddy.

If a person is willing to believe the sky-daddy stuff, he is willing to believe anything. You try to find me one other "woo" belief which is:

A) Dumber than any god/s and the belief therein
B) Anywhere near the importance of religion

If an invisible sky-daddy capable of creating the entire universe and changing the laws of physics to his will exists, then just about every other paranormal belief could certainly exist - it's all magic in one form or other - and psychics almost certainly would. After all, the people they talk to are dead, aren't they? Therefore, they are with god or in hell - why shouldn't the odd person be able to see them?

Utter baloney.

Carry on - Sceptics are meeting over in Room 3 for those sickened by thought of having to share a "label" with people who believe in miracles, angels, god/s and any other fairytale they choose.

 

[Yoink]

Disagree entirely and I did read it all.

It doesn't appear that you even read the entirety of my post, let alone the whole thread.

It's about one side suggesting that there must be a definition of a "pure skeptic" before the line can be drawn, while the other is making sensible, irrefutable statements.

That's a nice, non-tendentious way of putting it.

If you use sceptical enquiry to look at religion, it fails.

Yes--that was one of the things I said in my post (the part I think you skipped, because you made a [bad] guess as to what my position was rather than bothering to read and find out what my position actually was).

If you fail to apply scepticism there, there's little point applying it elsewhere.

Well, I tend to agree with that as a matter of pragmatic social/political priorities. However, it doesn't address the logical question of whether or not it is fair to call someone a "skeptic" who happens not to "apply skepticism there." If you're saying that to be a skeptic you have to apply skepticism everywhere then you're saying that, for example, David Hume was not a skeptic. That may be a defensible position, but it seems to limit the number of skeptics to a vanishingly small number. Quite possibly it limits them to 0.

And it isn't like some minor, irrelevant belief we're discussing, it's The Big One - three-quarters of the planet live their lives [ostensibly] to the tune of a sky-daddy.

Sure--again, that's a pragmatic position, not a logical one.

If a person is willing to believe the sky-daddy stuff, he is willing to believe anything. You try to find me one other "woo" belief which is:

A) Dumber than any god/s and the belief therein
B) Anywhere near the importance of religion

If an invisible sky-daddy capable of creating the entire universe and changing the laws of physics to his will exists, then just about every other paranormal belief could certainly exist - it's all magic in one form or other - and psychics almost certainly would. After all, the people they talk to are dead, aren't they? Therefore, they are with god or in hell - why shouldn't the odd person be able to see them?

Well, you're preaching to the choir. Except that we do in fact know people who suspend their skeptical practice when it comes to belief about a Deist kind of God (not really a "sky-daddy" of the kind you're railing against) and yet seem capable of being pretty rigorously skeptical in all other areas. People are weird and inconsistent--what are you going to do?

Carry on - Sceptics are meeting over in Room 3 for those sickened by thought of having to share a "label" with people who believe in miracles, angels, god/s and any other fairytale they choose.

Right, you don't like having these people on your "team." Fine--but again, that's got nothing to do with logical argument. You know--the stuff that skeptics are supposed to like to indulge in.

 

[saizai]

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.

If he believes that dowsing "works", but that what he means by "works" is "it doesn't have any discernable ability to do what it claims to do, i.e. find stuff beyond the mundane observational power of the users"... then okay whatever I guess. At that point it's just the equivalent of a worryball (e.g. those little squeezable globe things); if it's useful for him for purely psychological reasons, rather than claiming that the dowsing rod "does something" as such, then this is perfectly compatible with skepticism.

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

So, would you say that anything that is "mere sophism" like an untestable / unfalsifiable claim, is something that a "true skeptic" must not believe in, else lose their credentials?

If so, then surely you agree that all "true skeptics" such as yourself must necessarily be solipsists as well...

That is one point that most skeptics, the way I use the term, would agree that they can't prove or disprove, but they (choose to?) believe in a nonsolipsistic world anyway, because it's nicer that way.

Similarly someone may believe in a (untestable, unfalsifiable) god anyway.

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

Not really, because the people in question are quite happy to admit that this worldview is factually unsupported, and to critique it quite liberally on logical grounds. Nevertheless it's useful to them.

Though perhaps you're thinking of people more woo than my friends, who both hold these beliefs AND lack the ability (skill? ova?) to critique it logically - I grant that there are many more of these, so the confusion would be understandable.

 

[The Atheist]

Let's play, Spot The Difference!


Homeopathy works by water molecules magically remembering, and replicating the effect of chemicals.

God works in mysterious ways, which may or may not include answering prayers at whim.

Astrology works because the stars affect each of us in our daily lives.

God created the entire universe.

Psychics talk to the dead, because the dead aren't dead, but live on.

Christians don't really die, they live on in heaven.

Telekinesis works - people can move objects with their minds.

Invisible things can make physical things happen.

Reiki is a means of curing medical problems with supernatural powers.

Mary and Jesus were born by their mothers being impregnated by something with supernatural powers.

 

[Fnord]

Skepticism is a method for evaluating a particular and specific claim.

In the ideal case, yes. Also -- in an ideal case -- a skeptic is a person who uses the methodology of skepticism.

Unfortunately, for some "Skepticism" is now being used in its most fundamental and orthodox sense -- as a system wherein nothing is believed until there exist verifiable facts to support that belief, and that if a person believes even one unverifiable "fact," then that person is not a skeptic.

Much the same idea is shared by neo-conservative Bushites who state that if you disagree with even one of our president's decisions or policies, then you are not an American.

Or religious fundamentalists who declare that if you have even the slightest doubt about even one statement of religious dogma, then you are apostate and doomed to spend eternity in whatever state of damnation their religion embraces.

Therefore:

1) Skepticism is a method for evaluating a particular and specific claim.

2) A skeptic is a person who uses the methodology of skepticism.

No other qualifiers are needed.

 

[The Atheist]

Yes--that was one of the things I said in my post (the part I think you skipped, because you made a [bad] guess as to what my position was rather than bothering to read and find out what my position actually was).

My mistake, you've just mistaken my continuing on as directed at you, which it wasn't - it was directed at christians in particular. I'll put a page break or something in next time.

Well, I tend to agree with that as a matter of pragmatic social/political priorities. However, it doesn't address the logical question of whether or not it is fair to call someone a "skeptic" who happens not to "apply skepticism there." If you're saying that to be a skeptic you have to apply skepticism everywhere then you're saying that, for example, David Hume was not a skeptic. That may be a defensible position, but it seems to limit the number of skeptics to a vanishingly small number. Quite possibly it limits them to 0.

Nope, that goes back the "pure skepticism" thing, which I agree is silly. Just that if you don't apply it to the overwhelmingly most-believed and most important unsupported belief, the term "skeptic" becomes invalid, in my view.

Except that we do in fact know people who suspend their skeptical practice when it comes to belief about a Deist kind of God (not really a "sky-daddy" of the kind you're railing against) and yet seem capable of being pretty rigorously skeptical in all other areas. People are weird and inconsistent--what are you going to do?

Do we really know that, or do they say it?

Deist/theist, it really doesn't matter - the proposition is much the same, and "sky daddy" definitely fits the deist view, possibly more than a theist one. What else is the deist god but an unknowable, unnamed, impotent sky-daddy.

As to what I'm going to do, I've already done it!

Right, you don't like having these people on your "team." Fine--but again, that's got nothing to do with logical argument. You know--the stuff that skeptics are supposed to like to indulge in.

Disagree entirely. It's completely black and white:

Do you have any unsupported beliefs? yes/no You don't need to know everything, just base the answer on a person's current knowledge and the answer is entirely logical.

 

[GreNME]

You used the word "qualia."



I need an epinephrine shot now.


Please, define "qualia."

That's the whole point: there is no reasonable scientific definition for "what I feel."

Ok, what does "Religion is not a science" mean? All testable claims should be evaulted equally. What makes religion special?

Religion is not made up of testable claims. That's what I've been saying from the beginning.

 

[Big Les]

But they don't claim the existence of such a deity.

I don't understand the dichotomy between holding such beliefs and not making any claims about them. Sure, they don't make these claims openly, but doesn't the very act of belief imply that they think such a deity must exist?

Remember the scene in "Contact"? Get it?

No, sorry. I wish I did. I really would like to understand. (Platonic "love" is an abstract concept comprised of not only internal emotions, but observable phenomena such as repeated acts of altruism, protectiveness, demonstrated affection etc. It's not some magical power akin to a "god" of any kind, and it involves social relationship between two very real, very alive people.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Whoa...what's with this "define a skeptic"?

Look at the title "Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?" this whole thread is about the definition of who is and who is not a skeptic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And you definitely won't find us defending fundamentalists or Biblical literalism.

And this is the exact sentence where you demonstrate that you hold just as rigid lines about what a skeptic can not believe in as those who say that no theist can be a skeptic. You just move the line.