Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[JanisChambers]

I am actually trying to figure something along those lines, but honestly I have no idea. There just isn't anything to go on. As I say to those who question my atheism, It isn't that I don't believe in god, I simply have no reason to do so.

 

[Big Les]

Because it comforts you. Those that do that allow themselves to deceive themselves - ever so slightly, knowingly, but without any major damage - simply because they feel good about it.



That's precisely what I think.

I see that as personally inconsistent (up to them) and condescending (on the part of atheist sceptics). Sort of like saying, there there, you can believe in your emotional crutch as long as it's rendered externally impotent by not actually having any impact on the real world.

Can you also allow the social construct - a non-evidential god that comforts you - too?

If so, then you get it.

Me? No, I couldn't square it with the way I view the world with what I see as scepticism as my primary method for doing so. It seems hugely inconsistent, irrational, and as I know there's no evidence behind the idea, I simply can't maintain the level of self-deceit necessary to take that on board.

But I can allow it for others, of course. Why wouldn't I? I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to. In fact, as they don't make any testable claims, unlike the woos, they've got their own irrational beliefs pretty much unassailable. That's fine for them - I'm just saying I don't understand it, like the OP, not advocating that theist sceptics should be shunned or drummed out of the "club" or whatever.

I'm just trying to understand people that, notional theism aside, otherwise seem to share my own worldview.

 

[-Fran-]

Me? No, I couldn't square it with the way I view the world with what I see as scepticism as my primary method for doing so. It seems hugely inconsistent, irrational, and as I know there's no evidence behind the idea, I simply can't maintain the level of self-deceit necessary to take that on board.

But I can allow it for others, of course. Why wouldn't I? I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to. In fact, as they don't make any testable claims, unlike the woos, they've got their own irrational beliefs pretty much unassailable. That's fine for them - I'm just saying I don't understand it, like the OP, not advocating that theist sceptics should be shunned or drummed out of the "club" or whatever.

I'm just trying to understand people that, notional theism aside, otherwise seem to share my own worldview.

This is exactly how I see it, too. I can't understand why thinking this should be so threatening to some "theist skeptics" (I made that term up now, is it used/usable?) and how they can interpret this as we wanting them to shut up, or leave, etc etc Why do they think we would see them as a threat? I certainly don't.

ETA:
Oh, I see you used the term "theist skeptic" too now.

 

[Georg]

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.

I know it´s late to react on this since the discussion has moved on quite a bit, but I cannot let this go uncommented.
Let´s see:

Yes, but "most other people are" is neither logically sound nor necessarily intellectually honest.

Problem is: I didn´t claim "most other people are".
So, ascribing expressions to me that I didn´t use, just to to show my possible intellectual dishonesty and logically unsoundness seems a bit, mmhhmmmmm, dishonest and logically unsound? If it was meant different, or directed at somebody else, I apologize in advance and blame it on my insufficient knowledge of the English language.

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.

Agnosticism and atheism are not identical, but they are not opposed to each other either, agnostics and atheists are two groups that partly overlap. That exactly was my point.
If you see that different, I´d be happy to see your explanation how they are opposed. Thanks.

To the OP:

If people believe in religions that make testable claims (like YEC etc.), and as far as I´m aware, religious claims never have passed those tests, they are no skeptics in my opinion.
If they entertain the idea of some not exactly defined deity, that may have started the evolutionthingy and everything else but doesn´t interfere with the universe anymore, I´m torn. I cannot follow their thoughts or line of reasoning as there is no supporting evidence for that kind of god either and it makes as much sense for me as to believe in the IPU or the FSM. But they are still not in the same camp as people who believe despite contradicting evidence. Would "skeptic light™" be an accurate term?

 

[Dancing David]

It's not used as a standard practice for any specific condition, if that's what you mean. However, it is used to aid in gaining receptiveness to other treatments or to ease anxiety in people who are not diagnosed with a clinical anxiety condition.

Uh huh, right.

Documentation?

Using this as an argument is getting tiresome in its constant appeal to ignorance.

Pretending that the 'placebo effect' is not a conflation of different things is even more foolish.

Ever heard of 'regression to the mean'?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031231084101.htm
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392716
http://skepdic.com/placebo.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/placebo.html
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000109mag-talbot7.html
http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/2000/100_heal.html
http://student.bmj.com/issues/02/02/education/12.php

It that a lame appeal to authority or what,

no pubmed or even journal articles? Should be funny.

For a supposed 'skeptics' you sure are ignoring a lot of information out there written for skeptics by skeptics on the subject.

lamest appearl to authority ever.

There are ethical limitations to the use of placebo, first to protect the patient and second to prevent quackery or snake oil. However, you are seriously uninformed if you think double-blind testing is the only valid use for placebo.

I believe that you over read my statement.

Got any evidence to go with the hand and arm waving?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1231084101.htm

Says exactly what i said, that the placebo effect is a conflation of different things.

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles...e_id=218392716

This is the actual article:
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/conten...=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT#SEC3

and it is very interesting.

However it reports that an effect exists and is measurable.

However there are no conclusions as to the cognitive framework of how the mechanism works. So further study could be done to demonstrate why the effect occurs. One would certainly not be able to conclude that adminstration of a placebo is an effective pain management strategy.

The study also notes that the opiod receptors fire up in response to the application of the algesic.

Also some of the effects are small in overall intensity.

It would appear that the study group was also n=14 and that no control group was used.

http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

according to Danish researchers Asbjørn Hróbjartsson and Peter C. Götzsche. Their meta-study of 114 studies involving placebos found "little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects...[and]...compared with no treatment, placebo had no significant effect on binary outcomes, regardless of whether these outcomes were subjective or objective. For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect, but the effect decreased with increasing sample size, indicating a possible bias related to the effects of small trials ("Is the Placebo Powerless? An Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing Placebo with No Treatment," The New England Journal of Medicine, May 24, 2001 (Vol. 344, No. 21)."

http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/placebo.html

It appears that belief, operant conditioning, and suggestibility all play important roles.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magaz...g-talbot7.html

Wow a touchy feely magazine article, i shall have to dig up the original resrach and see what it actually says and what controls were used.

http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/2000/100_heal.html

Another general article, what does the real research say?

http://student.bmj.com/issues/02/02/education/12.php

And another general article. i shall have to read later.


basically so far they support my statement that the placebo effect is the conflation of many different effects.

 

[Lonewulf]

Meaning that a person who is sceptical about the yeti, but not regarding sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, UFO abductions and crop circles is still able to claim scepticism.

They can be skeptical about the Yeti, but not the Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, UFO abductions, and crop circles. Yeap.

Can they claim to be a "good" skeptic, or a consistent one? I don't think so, no.

No one is a 100% purist when it comes to skepticism. For instance, there are times where I believe that I can trust a friend; even when he's broken my trust, I'm willing to believe that he's honest about how he's not willing to break my trust again. That takes faith as much as it takes evidence.

However, if you're only a 1% purist, and believe everything that comes your way except for one thing, then the term "skeptic" doesn't quite seem to apply.

A 99% purist that's skeptical about everything (including claims of modern-day miracles), but yet believes in God (for now, let's take the Deist God, he's pretty easy-going), I'd still say that they still show a decent amount of skepticism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How does this make the Discovery people skeptics?

I don't consider them, I was wondering if he did when he was jumping on people for not having the power to arbitrate who is and who is not skeptics. But it is likely that they consider themselves to be skeptics.

How does Cleon's arguments fit into this?

Who has the ability to decide who is and who is not a skeptic of course.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am actually trying to figure something along those lines, but honestly I have no idea. There just isn't anything to go on. As I say to those who question my atheism, It isn't that I don't believe in god, I simply have no reason to do so.

I just realized that I can't conceive of a god that is not either pointless or evil.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No one is a 100% purist when it comes to skepticism. For instance, there are times where I believe that I can trust a friend; even when he's broken my trust, I'm willing to believe that he's honest about how he's not willing to break my trust again. That takes faith as much as it takes evidence.

No one can be 100% skeptic. Which idea is more skeptical the idea that all men are created equal or the idea that do to chance(good genes and such) some people are better than others?

What is the evidence for each side? A pure skeptic would go where the evidence leads.

 

[Apology]

Meaning that a person who is sceptical about the yeti, but not regarding sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, UFO abductions and crop circles is still able to claim scepticism.

Rationality shouldn't be available to only an elite few. Let them call themselves skeptics. We know whether they really are or not.

 

[Rasmus]

They can be skeptical about the Yeti, but not the Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, UFO abductions, and crop circles. Yeap.

Can they claim to be a "good" skeptic, or a consistent one? I don't think so, no.

This is as good a moment as any to bring up my previous question: How much meat can I eat whilst still be considered a vegetarian?

I don't think the answer must be "absolutely none". A vegetarian who accidentally takes a bite from a hot dog instead of a tofu substitute is still a vegetarian in my eyes. The same holds true for anyone who eats meat in those rare emergencies where other food is not available and waiting it out just isn't an option. I am sure there are more instances of meat-eating that I would think are acceptable for a vegetarian.

There are some self-proclaimed vegetarians who still eat fish. I don't consider these people to be vegetarians, but we simply use a different definition of what a vegetarian is. (I think "eats no animals" describes a vegetarian, other people may restrict that to land dwelling animals, or possibly even mammals.)

But if someone regularly eats beef (and does so out of choice and knowingly) I think it simply doesn't make sense to apply the label "vegetarian" to them any more. Eating beef is too big an exception.

 

[Lonewulf]

No one can be 100% skeptic. Which idea is more skeptical the idea that all men are created equal or the idea that do to chance(good genes and such) some people are better than others?

Define "better"?

"Equal" in what way? "All men are created equal" has different connotations depending on who's using it. Some people, for instance, believe that it means that all men are equal in the eyes of the law.

What is the evidence for each side? A pure skeptic would go where the evidence leads.

A good skeptic would want a good definition and some clarification before continuing...

 

[Rasmus]

Rationality shouldn't be available to only an elite few. Let them call themselves skeptics. We know whether they really are or not.

What does that have to do with the availability of rationality? I wasn't aware it is rationed somehow.

They can be as rational as they want - but nobody should claim rationality for instances where they aren't being rational.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't consider them

Yes, you do:

Clearly people can be religious and skeptical, just look at the Discovery Institute? Would you agree or disagree with that statement and why?

Not that I expect any kind of real answer.

, I was wondering if he did when he was jumping on people for not having the power to arbitrate who is and who is not skeptics. But it is likely that they consider themselves to be skeptics.

Do you consider the Discovery people skeptics? If so/not, why?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Define "better"?

You can choose any real metric you want. Some will do better at them than others

"Equal" in what way? "All men are created equal" has different connotations depending on who's using it. Some people, for instance, believe that it means that all men are equal in the eyes of the law.

But that is not a position based on evidence, it is similar to theistic principles because it is also a philosophical principle.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, you do:

No I was taking wondering how far his position went.

 

[CFLarsen]

No I was taking wondering how far his position went.

Well, then: Why don't you consider the Discovery people skeptics?

 

[Lonewulf]

You can choose any real metric you want. Some will do better at them than others.

Yes, but almost everyone contributes in some way, shape, or form. Not everyone needs to be a 1337 programmer.

But that is not a position based on evidence, it is similar to theistic principles because it is also a philosophical principle.

It is a position based on evidence if the law actually does treat them as equal. Then it's easy enough to say, "They are equal in the eyes of the law". There, done.

Of course, the law doesn't tend to actually work that way, but that's the ideal...

 

[Yoink]

Good for you.

Devastating counter-argument.