Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[drzeus99]

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.

That's a load of hooey. A skeptic applies critical thinking, logic, reason,
common sense, and basis opinions based on factual evidence.

A skeptic who believes in "all sorts of woo"

That person really isn't a skeptic. They "may" be skeptical
when it comes to "something", but they really aren't skeptics.

Woo is woo no matter what form it comes in. People should evaluate claims that seem to based on supernatural explanations and use the processes skeptics should know well to formulate their beliefs. Letting any supernatural claims slide simply is really sad. Just my 2¢


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[Apology]

Also, religion seems to get some kind of special pass when it comes to evaluating its supernatural claims. (from some people)


Cheers,
DrZ

This is, to a certain degree, true.I think it's one of those "Don't mention the dead elephant in the room" things where some people don't want to be offensive. However, no one should be offended by a genuine question offered in good faith as long as it isn't phrased in an unnecessarily inflammatory manner.

I would never say, "Let them say what they want here, because I don't wish to offend them, as their beliefs are held so deeply." People should be called on it if what they're talking about makes no sense. I just advocate doing it in the most sympathetic manner possible. If someone is being insulting or heavy handed towards an atheist, the atheist doesn't have to turn the other cheek---I wouldn't ask them to be Christians, lol. However, it behooves them to chide their opponent for the offensive behavior rather than engaging in retaliatory offensive behavior themselves.

Naturally this is much easier said than done

I also think that sometimes people are offensive out of ignorance and truly don't mean to offend. I did it myself once in asking a Kurd a question about the Kurds. I guess my question was borderline racist and if the person that I asked had thought I knew what I doing, he'd have probably punched me Fortunately, he realized that I'd just been badly misinformed by someone who hated Kurds. I think some Christians offend out of ignorance a lot of the time. They simply don't see how what they're saying could be construed as offensive because they don't know anything about any religions other than their own sect of Christianity.

Of course, then there's Fred Phelps. There's no doubt that he knowingly intends to offend. If others offend him knowingly in return he certainly deserves it, but you have to admit, it wouldn't be the most mature way to handle the offense. I try to ignore people like that as much as possible, since I think they want our attention more than anything else, but if they're trodding on your rights as Westboro Baptist tends to do, you have a right and a duty to fight them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But you do admit that the two are possible reasons for one's faith ? Also, I did mention Pascal's wager, and simple choice as two other reasons.
Yes, but to many people, there are some things that aren't worth skeptical analysis.
I have no idea. I never had time to start doing that before I became an Atheist.
Well, as I said, it depends on how strict a definition of "skeptic" we're working on.
Yes, because they feel there cannot be evidence for or against god. "You must believe without proof" is actually one of their mantra, at least in French.

I don't agree that choosing to believe (for whatever reason, Pascal's logic or other) is in keeping with the skeptical approach. I suppose you could argue some logical decision making process here that was faulty but from having poor logic skills or some knowledge deficit rather than a hypocritical willful blind spot. It's really a stretch. That same skeptic should be easily convinced when presented with the evidence that their logic was faulty.

We aren't disagreeing on the other matter. We aren't looking at the same criteria. You seem to think this is about fairness to the skeptic rather than about skeptical principles. I don't care if a Christian wants to be a skeptic in the rest of their life. It's hypocritical, but it isn't like I wouldn't speak to them or I'd constantly call attention to their hypocrisy. They can call themselves a skeptic. They can have their hypocritical blind spot. That doesn't change the fact it's hypocritical. They are maintaining woo beliefs of their own while criticizing the woo beliefs of others.

 

[drzeus99]

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.

Exactly. You stated my thoughts quite well.
If one is to be truly honest in their skepticism, than they
shouldn't shy away from using their skepticism when it comes
to religion and any beliefs in supernatural beings.

Of course anyone is free to believe what they want and call
themselves whatever they want. We are all also entitled to our
beliefs on what we think when it comes to labels.

My opinions are only MY opinions. They are written down to evoke
thoughtful discussion on topics and to state my person point of view.

Nothing more...nothing less. All people's views should be respected.
But they don't necessarily have to be agreed with.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[drzeus99]

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"?

To answer your questions:

1. Atheist (but also agnostic) But being agnostic doesn't always mean atheist
2. Agnostic (if you change "must" to "might") If religious terms are used
and the word "must" remains, then non skeptical theist (belief in
mythical beings with no evidence at all)
3. Kook. Anyone claiming to know 100% if anything doesn't or never
exists is lying. No one can know. Ever. Period. Anything else is a lie.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[drzeus99]

@ 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.

No thanks. I'll think for myself and formulate my OWN opinions.


DEAL WITH IT


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT! Different people can come to different conclusions even when using the same data. Ultimately, we have to accept and respect that even if we think the other fellow is wrong.

If there was empirical evidence for gods we wouldn't be having this discussion. And in spite of your claim everyone interprets evidence differently, there is still a set of rules governing the scientific process. The Bible, for example is not more convincing than any other writings from the time. So historical evidence would be looked at objectively. Christians, by definition do not take that approach. They assume certain things and work the evidence around those.

Besides, that's not really what you are saying. Instead, what you are really stating is that you can't personally comprehend how someone can be a Christian and a skeptic. Subtle, but fundamental difference.

I don't think I have denied that. You can use the term comprehend as if it means a lack of imagination or a failure to consider all possibilities. That would be incorrect. I can imagine it. I do so and come to the same conclusion.

Perhaps you cannot 'comprehend' as you put it, (see the problem objectively as I would put it) that all god beliefs are equally imaginary.

Confusing the two turns "skepticism" into an ideology, a set of beliefs that one must adhere to in order to be a "proper" member of the group. Do that and all you end up with is dueling ideologies. Others will turn against skepticism because they will see it (rightly in this particular case) as just one group insisting that it's version of the truth is better than theirs. The fact that it (probably) actually is will be completely beside the point.

You don't change science in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings. And if you substitute the scientific process for the term skepticism you might have a better understanding why using the term skepticism as if it were an ideology rather than a philosophy is wrong.

Philosophy^WP

is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).[1][2]

Ideology^WP

An ideology is an organized collection of ideas. The word ideology was coined by Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy in the late 18th century to define a "science of ideas." An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society. The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.

The two terms are extremely close but the subtle differences matter here. An ideology is a thing. I view skepticism as a process.

Worse, it encourages skeptics to treat their beliefs as a sort of fait accompli where it is so "obvious" that their views are correct why should they really examine them? This is what every other group with a closely held belief system does. We shouldn't be so arrogant as to assume that somehow being a "skeptic" makes us immune to this common human failing.

Here you are completely mistaken and you are confusing a set of beliefs with the process of how one acquires beliefs. Like I said, skepticism is about the scientific process as the means of determining the correct interpretation of the evidence. There are no fixed views contained in that interpretation. All that is fixed is the process of discovering the world.

Instead, we should have faith in the methodology of skepticism. Teach that and then trust that people will come to the best conclusion. Concentrate on good critical thinking. Teach the method.

If "skepticism" becomes nothing more than a list of conclusions that any "good" skeptic "must" believe then we've already lost.

We obviously agree here. You cannot see however that I have looked very closely at god beliefs. For whatever reasons (you can't let go of god perhaps) you assume because I have expressed my conclusion as part of the discussion here that I couldn't change that conclusion given sufficient evidence.

What I have concluded is what I said in a previous post. You can test for gods as defined by god believers. The tests so far have failed to detect any gods. The gods which cannot be tested for as defined by scientists are not the gods which people believe in. I am complaining that the gods science cannot test for are spoken of as if they were the same gods people believe in. They are not.

 

[-Fran-]

Nice to see you back in the thread, drzeus99, I thought you may have abadoned it You've read through all the pages? Your OP have generated quite a discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not what I am doing. Skepticism is a definitive thing -- a definitive method for evaluating evidence. It is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Think of it this way -- It's the difference between cooking and lasagna. You use the method "cooking" to produce an end product "lasagna." The mistake people are making here is, in effect, to argue that the only "proper" type of cooking is one that always produces lasagna.

Since we both see skepticism here as a process, how about explaining what exactly is it about my posts you are objecting to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...In others words, you are indeed saying that a "good" skeptic must believe in a certain thing, at least on this point....

No, you missed the boat. What we are saying is god believers are not using the scientific process to conclude their god beliefs.

 

[drzeus99]

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.

I'll agree with that.

In that case, according to # 2, FAILURE to use this methodology
on religious claims of supreme beings is either than:

A. A complete copout
B. Someone with strangely selective use of skepticism, failing to use
it on, questionably, the world's biggest supernatural claim.


How that person can call themselves a real skeptic is just surprising to me.
Can be skeptical when reviewing claims of psychics, but wait a minute,
don't dare to be skeptical against religion.

Again. People can do what they want, and people can question why they
do things. I'm just questioning these matters and formulating my own
opnions, which I post here, just as others do.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have a good example. Urban legends. You can be skeptical and atheist as all get-out and still find out that you're wrong on Snopes. People believe urban legends because on the surface they appear rational, or they were once believed to be true but have been proven false after the legend had already circulated (eg: "bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly" legend). Atheists and skeptics are still subject to this type of non-theological incorrect belief, because if something appears reasonable and rational on the surface, one has no reason to question it.

Trust me on this one.

That would be an error. No one is saying skeptics are not subject to error.

There is a point here only in that we aren't always drawing our conclusions from evidence. Like you say, we might find something plausible and accept it without proper investigation. That still falls into the category of accidental error. One doesn't hold certain urban legends above the evidence and proclaim them true in spite of contradictory evidence or say I'm not going to look at the evidence of this one thing.

 

[articulett]

That's not what I am doing. Skepticism is a definitive thing -- a definitive method for evaluating evidence. It is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Think of it this way -- It's the difference between cooking and lasagna. You use the method "cooking" to produce an end product "lasagna." The mistake people are making here is, in effect, to argue that the only "proper" type of cooking is one that always produces lasagna.

Nah... bad analogy. I would say the best kind of skepticism is the kind that helps the most people understand the same reality we all share.

Skepticism is a tool for weeding out facts from all the other stuff that fools people.

 

[drzeus99]

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?

Umm..OK
I'm in a good mood, so I'll throw you a bone with that one.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[-Fran-]

That would be an error. No one is saying skeptics are not subject to error.

There is a point here only in that we aren't always drawing our conclusions from evidence. Like you say, we might find something plausible and accept it without proper investigation. That still falls into the category of accidental error. One doesn't hold certain urban legends above the evidence and proclaim them true in spite of contradictory evidence or say I'm not going to look at the evidence of this one thing.

As several of us have already explained like a 100 times, only with different wording. Maybe this thread is getting too big for people to keep track of all the posts?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

We still like you, Cleon. And I understand why you think I am just arbitrarily declaring myself queen of the rule book. But that isn't the case at all. And I don't think anyone else is saying that. What I am saying is you have to exclude your god beliefs from your skeptic beliefs in order to hold them. You cannot look objectively at your own god beliefs in the same way you might look objectively at say a Buddhist's or a Hindu's god beliefs.

You can, I imagine examine god beliefs to a certain extent. A skeptic isn't going to believe the face of Jesus is in the tortilla, nor is the shaking of the congealed blood in the glass container which becomes liquid every year a miracle. But somewhere along the way you stop the critical analysis. OK, so the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and humans evolved. So did God make Adam and Eve? Was there a Garden of Eden? Is the story of original sin real or symbolic? Let's say it's symbolic. No worldwide flood, symbolic as well. Can you really look at the evidence objectively which more than suggests the Jesus in the Bible didn't really exist (see "The God Who Wasn't There for a synopsis of the evidence against there being an actual Jesus)? Is that where the line is for you?

Suppose you've now found evidence there was no 7 day Creation, no 6,000 year old Earth, no real Adam and Eve, no Noah's Flood, no real Jesus, lots of evidence the Bible was written by men and based on the myths they believed and passed on from person to person centuries before writing emerged.

Your god beliefs exclude all other god beliefs as wrong and yours right. But that logic is hard to support based on the evidence people simply developed god beliefs in every corner of the Earth. Those god beliefs differ enough that they cannot all be correct. The only thing singling out your god beliefs is your geographical location. Had you been born in India, you would very likely have different god beliefs that you found to be the correct ones instead.

Where on that continuum does your skeptic philosophy stop and your god beliefs become no longer subject to skeptical inquiry?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As several of us have already explained like a 100 times, only with different wording. Maybe this thread is getting too big for people to keep track of all the posts?

I know but sometimes something sounds different. In this case there was that idea of not having evidence for every belief. It has been discussed but I can see where the thought process was going there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
If they entertain the idea of some not exactly defined deity, that may have started the evolution thingy 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?

This idea has the same issues as defining gods that can fit into the scientific realm only because they cannot be tested for and no evidence is expected of that god belief. That's really just someone who has noticed there is no evidence but just can't quite let go. So if the evidence really starts to mount against the god you believed, just make up a new god.

 

[drzeus99]

Nice to see you back in the thread, drzeus99, I thought you may have abadoned it You've read through all the pages? Your OP have generated quite a discussion.

Hiya Fran

Yah, I'm back. Took a brief vacation for a coupla days around
Thanksgiving. Thanks for the kind "welcome back".

I'm just about through catching up with all these posts. I'm pleased that
it's gotten alot of action. It really encouages people to use their minds
and express their POV's. I enjoy the (mostly) friendly, civil discourse
and difference of opinions that go on here.

After solely being a lurker for at least a year, I've decided to
put my 2¢ in whenever I could.

This was always my fav boards to read, but after many years of posting
on diff BB's all over the 'net, I wanted one that I only read, and didn't post in. I have a habit of sometimes getting too caught up in posting on various BB's, and knew this one had the potential to create more of the same.

Looks like I was right
I'm getting addicted to this board too!


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[-Fran-]

Hiya Fran

Yah, I'm back. Took a brief vacation for a coupla days around
Thanksgiving. Thanks for the kind "welcome back".

Ahh, yeah, I keep forgetting you're having (have had) a holiday over there

I'm just about through catching up with all these posts. I'm pleased that
it's gotten alot of action. It really encouages people to use their minds
and express their POV's. I enjoy the (mostly) friendly, civil discourse
and difference of opinions that go on here.

Sure generated some action, yes. That's what I like about this forum, even when it frustrates the hell out of me, I still like it when opinions clash - it's dynamic and makes you think and learn. And there hasn't been as much drama as there could have been I guess

After solely being a lurker for at least a year, I've decided to
put my 2¢ in whenever I could.

This was always my fav boards to read, but after many years of posting
on diff BB's all over the 'net, I wanted one that I only read, and didn't post in. I have a habit of sometimes getting too caught up in posting on various BB's, and knew this one had the potential to create more of the same.

Looks like I was right
I'm getting addicted to this board too!

Yeah, I think I lurked for a few months before I couldn't resist it anymore And now I am a junkie too