Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Egg]

[*]The skeptical approach is to say: "God does not exist", the same definitive way we can say "The Earth is not flat". We can do that because the scientific evidence shows this. While always provisional, it is as definitive as it can get without becoming dogmatic.


[*]The atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is a skeptic. The atheist who says "There is no God, regardless of what comes up" is certainly not a skeptic. Such a person is no different from someone who says "Sylvia is a psychic, regardless of what comes up".

Could you maybe clarify these two points please?

They look to me to be contradicting this point:

[*]It is not being skeptical to presume that things don't exist until they have been proven to do so. The skeptical thing is to say that we don't know either way until evidence comes in, whatever it may show.

 

[schlitt]

Thanks for the clarification.

[*]If we as skeptics are to criticize what believers say, we have to criticize what they claim - not what we want them to claim.

Agreed.

[*]We can't, as skeptics, test non-testable claims.

We can however apply reason. Something may simply be untestable because it is not possible. The default position regarding outlandish claims should not be belief.

[*]That is why it is not an issue for skepticism if some people want to believe in an acknowledged imaginary god/friend/bartender. Credo Consolans beliefs are not incompatible with a skeptical approach. It all comes down to evidence - and whether evidence is claimed or not.

You are correct, but surely you can see how this position of belief for the sake of desire is not sound logically?

[*]In the case of an intervening God, it is skeptical to position that the existence of God can be proven - or not. We can simply examine the evidence pro and contra. In the case of a non-intervening God, we can't know if he exists or not. There is nothing to examine.

We can make assertions about the type of god described in most faiths, as there are contradictions and logical fallacies which would seem to invalidate the proposition. As you correctly note, we cannot examine something which is un-examinable, yet based on a methodology which requires evidence before belief, how would a skeptic justify believing something which cannot be shown in any way to be a valid concept?

[*]We can say that beliefs based on evidence and beliefs based on faith are compatible, as long as the beliefs based on faith are not in conflict with the beliefs based on evidence.

Just because they are non contradictory does not lend any credibility.

[*]The skeptical approach is to say: "God does not exist", the same definitive way we can say "The Earth is not flat". We can do that because the scientific evidence shows this. While always provisional, it is as definitive as it can get without becoming dogmatic.

Agreed.

[*]The atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is a skeptic. The atheist who says "There is no God, regardless of what comes up" is certainly not a skeptic. Such a person is no different from someone who says "Sylvia is a psychic, regardless of what comes up".

Agreed. I do no think anyone here would differ with you on this point.

[*]It is not being skeptical to presume that things don't exist until they have been proven to do so. The skeptical thing is to say that we don't know either way until evidence comes in, whatever it may show.

While this is technically true, one still can use common sense, and past knowledge to make a prediction of probability.

[*]We can say that X is unverifiable and untestable today. What we can't say is that it will always be unverifiable and untestable.

Agreed.

[*]We can't criticize someone's belief for being irrational, if they don't claim that their belief is rational. In this case, they already know that they are - but they are irrational in a non-evidential way.

Yes we can. Being aware of the falsehoods of a claim does not neutralise the falsity.
If i said "I can jump out of a 20 story building and land on my head and live. well, i know its not possible but i believe it anyway." my being aware of the stupidity of the claim does not mean that you cannot criticize my claim for being stupid. The fact is, the claim is stupid and most likely false.

[*]We can't disprove gods, exactly the same way we can't disprove invisible pink unicorns.

Agreed.

 

[CFLarsen]

Could you maybe clarify these two points please?

They look to me to be contradicting this point:

Provisional.

That's one of the things that a lot of people don't understand, when we talk about scientific evidence.

I see it so often:

"There is scientific evidence of X. Therefore, it is proven beyond any doubt, today and in all future, that X is true."

One of the tasks we have before us is to get people to understand how science works. It doesn't work as a sieve to separate truth from falsehoods once and for all. It works as a sieve to separate truth from falsehood based on what we know at the present moment.

This doesn't take away the strength of science at all. On the contrary, it shows how useful science is to describe the world to us: It readily accepts that we progress not so much from the knowledge we find, but from the knowledge we find from discovering how and where we went wrong.

Daniel Boorstein has called it the age of non-discovery: We have found that the Earth is not flat. The stars are not shining lamps fixed on a carpet.

Unfortunately, I also see some people using this as an argument against all science:

"Oh, since science can't give us absolute answers, we might as well discard with this whole science business altogether".

Creationists in particular are very fond of this line of "reasoning". T'ai Chi being one of them.

 

[Big Les]

I don't have time to point-by-point with you again Claus, I'm going to offline for likely four days. Some of your issues with some of my responses appear to be nothing more than misinterpretations of what I'm trying to say. Others, total disagreement. Regardless, thank you for attempting to clarify; I will think about what you've said further in the meantime. I will just address this one right now;

You are wrong again. We are not rational adults, far from it. The many manifestations of various forms of superstition prove this.

Nobody is pure rationality.

I'm not saying they are, or even that they can be. But as I have already said, they can at least strive towards that by correcting errors as they become aware of them, becoming as in tune with objective reality as they possibly can. This is a value that I hold dear, and that I had assumed most people self-identifying as sceptics would also share. Belief in god despite a total lack of evidence and a discreditation of what evidence has been put forward, is an error. If I catch myself thinking something irrational, or someone points it out, I attempt to adapt appropriately. If people wish to compartimentalise, that's their business. But I am equally permitted to express my opinion that if they share a desire to aim toward rationality, they are misguided in their persisted religious belief. Perhaps I should not have assumed that all sceptics share my interest in seeking rational behaviour and thought wherever practicable.

The strange thing is that you do agree that "The skeptical approach is to say: "God does not exist". But you have contradicted this, and do so again in your last post, as Egg has quite rightly pointed out.

How do you reconcile this?

 

[CFLarsen]

We can however apply reason. Something may simply be untestable because it is not possible. The default position regarding outlandish claims should not be belief.

Well, that depends on what you call "outlandish"? Extraordinary, like Sagan did? If so, remember that Sagan was talking about testable claims. And then, you're back to square 1 again.

"Outlandish", because you personally feel this way? Hmm....

You are correct, but surely you can see how this position of belief for the sake of desire is not sound logically?

Logically, in what way? Scientific logic? Then, you are back to the testability issue again.

We can make assertions about the type of god described in most faiths, as there are contradictions and logical fallacies which would seem to invalidate the proposition. As you correctly note, we cannot examine something which is un-examinable, yet based on a methodology which requires evidence before belief, how would a skeptic justify believing something which cannot be shown in any way to be a valid concept?

Again, what do you mean by "valid concept"? You can rightfully say that Sylvia Browne talking to dead people is not a "valid concept", because she makes testable claims by claiming to be able to do so, but are you going to tell a child that his imaginary friend is not a "valid concept"? Are you going to tell a mother who has lost a child that her imaginary god whom she feels watches over her is not a "valid concept"?

Just because they are non contradictory does not lend any credibility.

When you say "credibility", do you not in reality mean "credibility based on your own preconceived notions"?

Agreed. I do no think anyone here would differ with you on this point.

Well, perhaps Sylvia...

While this is technically true, one still can use common sense, and past knowledge to make a prediction of probability.

Yes, we can make predictions based on probability, but be careful with that "common sense" thingie. Don't let that overtake what the evidence shows.

Yes we can. Being aware of the falsehoods of a claim does not neutralise the falsity.
If i said "I can jump out of a 20 story building and land on my head and live. well, i know its not possible but i believe it anyway." my being aware of the stupidity of the claim does not mean that you cannot criticize my claim for being stupid. The fact is, the claim is stupid and most likely false.

That's because it is testable.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't have time to point-by-point with you again Claus, I'm going to offline for likely four days. Some of your issues with some of my responses appear to be nothing more than misinterpretations of what I'm trying to say. Others, total disagreement. Regardless, thank you for attempting to clarify; I will think about what you've said further in the meantime.

Take your time. The thread will still be here when you return. And the questions to you.

I will just address this one right now;

No.

If you have time to ask me new questions, you have time to answer the questions already put to you.

Do that first, before you move on.

 

[schlitt]

Well, that depends on what you call "outlandish"? Extraordinary, like Sagan did? If so, remember that Sagan was talking about testable claims. And then, you're back to square 1 again.

Yes but we are also back to square 1 of why it should be believed if a skeptical approach which requires evidence is being used.

"Outlandish", because you personally feel this way? Hmm....

I used outlandish in a flippant way, meaning something which would seem to cotradict what we percieve as possible under natural laws.

Logically, in what way? Scientific logic? Then, you are back to the testability issue again.

Yes scientific logic. If a claim contradicts known science then it can be considered illogical. If the claim is furthermore untestable then there is no way to lend the claim any credibility. With no evidence why should a claim be believed? Is not the very purpose of skepticism to ensure one has sound evidence before accepting a claim?

Again, what do you mean by "valid concept"? You can rightfully say that Sylvia Browne talking to dead people is not a "valid concept", because she makes testable claims by claiming to be able to do so, but are you going to tell a child that his imaginary friend is not a "valid concept"? Are you going to tell a mother who has lost a child that her imaginary god whom she feels watches over her is not a "valid concept"?

I am refering to the truth behind the concept, not the concept itself.

When you say "credibility", do you not in reality mean "credibility based on your own preconceived notions"?

Yes, that is all one can do. Weigh up things against logic, reason, and prior knowledge and most importantly evidence. If a preconception is based on these things, it may very well be valid.

Yes, we can make predictions based on probability, but be careful with that "common sense" thingie. Don't let that overtake what the evidence shows.

Exactly. Going by this, why would it make sense to believe something which has no evidence and is no more likely than invisible pink unicorns?

That's because it is testable.

The same applies with a non testable statement though, we reference what is being claimed with the likelihood of accuracy, and are able to state if something SEEMS rational or not. Being untestable does not lend a statment any rationale. After the facts are known belief can be judged for accuracy and validity, but until such time as the facts are known, each statement should be treated with the skepticism it deserves.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes but we are also back to square 1 of why it should be believed if a skeptical approach which requires evidence is being used.

.....because it is a testable claim?

Or am I missing something in your argument?

I used outlandish in a flippant way, meaning something which would seem to cotradict what we percieve as possible under natural laws.

The key question is, does it? Does it contradict what we perceive as possible under natural laws? To do so, it would have to be testable.

Yes scientific logic. If a claim contradicts known science then it can be considered illogical. If the claim is furthermore untestable then there is no way to lend the claim any credibility. With no evidence why should a claim be believed? Is not the very purpose of skepticism to ensure one has sound evidence before accepting a claim?

Quite so. But what it comes down to is the testability issue?

I am refering to the truth behind the concept, not the concept itself.

What "truth"?

Yes, that is all one can do. Weigh up things against logic, reason, and prior knowledge and most importantly evidence. If a preconception is based on these things, it may very well be valid.

It may. But then, it is far, far more than just your own preconceived notions.

Exactly. Going by this, why would it make sense to believe something which has no evidence and is no more likely than invisible pink unicorns?

Because it comforts you. That's why it makes sense to those who choose to believe in something non-evidential, and which they know and fully acknowledge is non-evidential.

The same applies with a non testable statement though, we reference what is being claimed with the likelihood of accuracy, and are able to state if something SEEMS rational or not. Being untestable does not lend a statment any rational. After the facts are known belief can be judged for accuracy and validity, but until such time as the facts are known, each statement should be treated with the skepticism it deserves.

When you talk about accuracy, you are also talking about something that is testable.

How else are you going to calculate/estimate the accuracy of something which you can't test?

 

[schlitt]

CFLarsen, I understand your point, something which is not testable cannot be disproven. The problem with this position however, is that the opposite is also true. The claim cannot be proven.

Given the fact that invisible pink unicorns cannot be proven, explain to me why it would be consistent with skepticism to believe in them?

 

[schlitt]

.....because it is a testable claim?

Or am I missing something in your argument?

The point is, how can something be considered valid if there is no way to validate it?

The key question is, does it? Does it contradict what we perceive as possible under natural laws? To do so, it would have to be testable.

It could do, it depends on the claim.

Quite so. But what it comes down to is the testability issue?

Testability would only not be possible for something which has no valid reasoning to begin with. If there were valid reasons to believe, there would be some kind of evidence which prompted the belief in the first place, hence it would be testable.

What "truth"?

Whether or not a claim is true. There is a difference between the concept of talking to the dead, and the reality of whether you can or not.

It may. But then, it is far, far more than just your own preconceived notions.

Yes, and that is the way it should be for somone who follows skeptical methodology.

Because it comforts you. That's why it makes sense to those who choose to believe in something non-evidential, and which they know and fully acknowledge is non-evidential.

Believing in something for comfort is not consistent with skepticism.

When you talk about accuracy, you are also talking about something that is testable.

How else are you going to calculate/estimate the accuracy of something which you can't test?

You cannot, but again, why should something with no evidence and no sound reasoning be accepted without evidence? And remember, the claim is either true of false, whether it is testable or not.

 

[Egg]

Provisional.

That's one of the things that a lot of people don't understand, when we talk about scientific evidence.

I don't have any issue with the provisional thing. What I'm questioning is the apparent contradiction between the points.

[*]The skeptical approach is to say: "God does not exist", the same definitive way we can say "The Earth is not flat". We can do that because the scientific evidence shows this. While always provisional, it is as definitive as it can get without becoming dogmatic.

[*]The atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is a skeptic.

We have solid evidence that the earth is not flat. We can't say the same for God. Are you saying here that the skeptical approach asserts that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

[*]It is not being skeptical to presume that things don't exist until they have been proven to do so. The skeptical thing is to say that we don't know either way until evidence comes in, whatever it may show.

Then here you seem to say that the skeptical approach asserts that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Surely a logical methodology can't assert contradictory premisses?

 

[CFLarsen]

The point is, how can something be considered valid if there is no way to validate it?

But is it considered valid as in "I claim evidence that it is valid"?

If this is not the case, where does skepticism enter the picture?

It could do, it depends on the claim.

Yes. Exactly. But if there is no claim of evidence, where does skepticism enter the picture?

Testability would only not be possible for something which has no valid reasoning to begin with.

No, no, no. Now, you are equating what you feel is "valid" with what is actually testable.

If there were valid reasons to believe, there would be some kind of evidence which prompted the belief in the first place, hence it would be testable.

You are going to test if people feel comforted? How are you going to do that?

Whether or not a claim is true. There is a difference between the concept of talking to the dead, and the reality of whether you can or not.

Absolutely agree. But that is not what the issue here is. A testable claim gets the skeptical treatment. No doubt about that.

Yes, and that is the way it should be for somone who follows skeptical methodology.

No argument from me.

Believing in something for comfort is not consistent with skepticism.

Why? Where is the testable claim?

You cannot, but again, why should something with no evidence and no sound reasoning be accepted without evidence? And remember, the claim is either true of false, whether it is testable or not.

Accepted as what? As being true? Well, it isn't "true" when it comes to evidence, but then again, no evidence is claimed to exist.

I listen mostly to classical music. I believe that J.S. Bach is by far the greatest composer who ever lived. He gives me comfort, because I take great joy in his music.

Is my belief false?

 

[CFLarsen]

CFLarsen, I understand your point, something which is not testable cannot be disproven. The problem with this position however, is that the opposite is also true. The claim cannot be proven.

Given the fact that invisible pink unicorns cannot be proven, explain to me why it would be consistent with skepticism to believe in them?

Is the belief claimed to be backed by evidence of invisible pink unicorns?

If not, where does skepticism enter the picture?

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't have any issue with the provisional thing. What I'm questioning is the apparent contradiction between the points.

I don't see the contradiction.

We have solid evidence that the earth is not flat. We can't say the same for God. Are you saying here that the skeptical approach asserts that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Of course not. What makes you say that?

Then here you seem to say that the skeptical approach asserts that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Surely a logical methodology can't assert contradictory premisses?

I'm not saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I am really not getting your point here.

 

[Egg]

I don't see the contradiction.

Of course not. What makes you say that?

I'm not saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I am really not getting your point here.

[*]The skeptical approach is to say: "God does not exist", the same definitive way we can say "The Earth is not flat". We can do that because the scientific evidence shows this. While always provisional, it is as definitive as it can get without becoming dogmatic.

How am I reading this wrong? "The skeptical approach is to say: "God does not exist"...". Do you mean "the skeptical approach is to try to say..."? Otherwise I don't see how this is not a baseless claim?

[*]The atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is a skeptic. The atheist who says "There is no God, regardless of what comes up" is certainly not a skeptic. Such a person is no different from someone who says "Sylvia is a psychic, regardless of what comes up".

Surely the atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is saying that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

 

[schlitt]

I listen mostly to classical music. I believe that J.S. Bach is by far the greatest composer who ever lived. He gives me comfort, because I take great joy in his music.

Is my belief false?

Your belief is testable. We could measure your brain to see what is happening when you listen to the music. We could determine which elements of the music cause you to like it so much. We could test the skill of the composer and the composition against other composers and so on. We could eventially come to a conclusion as to whether or not your belief is true measured against the different facets which make up music composition.
I do not think this example fits.

I do not doubt that the belief in god may bring comfort.

My point is if something is untestable, what way is there to demostrate if the belief is in fact true or not?

Without a way of demonstrating a belief to be true, a methodology which requires evidence will not accept it as true.

I dont like to contruct a straw man here, but this it what it seems to me to be what you are saying:

"Skepticism should not be applied to anything which is untestable."

To me, this type of logic flies in the face of skepticism. My way of viewing skepticism is, that claims should only be accepted which can be shown to be true.

At the end of the day skepticism comes down to a well informed guess at a conclusion. We can say with high probability Sylvia browne is not psychic. We can say with high probability that homeopathy is rubbish. What allows us to say these things is that we have tested for evidence and found none.
With a claim where these same tests cannot be undertaken, the position should not change from "We require evidence".

 

[schlitt]

Is the belief claimed to be backed by evidence of invisible pink unicorns?

If not, where does skepticism enter the picture?

No, the belief is not claimed to be evidential, yet it is irrelevant.

Skepticism requires evidence... a skeptic will not believe in invisible pink unicorns. The same applies for any other claim which has no evidence.


-gravity is caused by seahorses...

-pluto's core is molten chocolate...

-our neighboring galaxies original name is "Rhonda Byrne", and was named that by aliens from the planet zorg...

-there is a god who does nothing...

Why should skeptics accept any of these claims as true without evidence?

 

[articulett]

To me, if someone is less skeptical about god than than they are about demons, they are applying their skepticism is an uneven manner.

If theistic skeptics don't mind that most skeptics are as skeptical of their god(s) as they are skeptical of demons, et. al. (invisible immeasurable entities), then they can call themselves skeptics or whatever they want to call themselves.

If that bugs them, it behooves us all to find out why.

I can't make sense of Claus or his points or his questions, and I have no idea who he's speaking for or what expertise he imagines he has.

 

[-Fran-]

To me, if someone is less skeptical about god than than they are about demons, they are applying their skepticism is an uneven manner.

If theistic skeptics don't mind that most skeptics are as skeptical of their god(s) as they are skeptical of demons, et. al. (invisible immeasurable entities), then they can call themselves skeptics or whatever they want to call themselves.

If that bugs them, it behooves us all to find out why.

I can't make sense of Claus or his points or his questions, and I have no idea who he's speaking for or what expertise he imagines he has.

And now it's schlitt who explains what has already been explained a hundred times (and very nicely so, schlitt ) in various ways in this thread. Things are still going in circles, it seems.

 

[articulett]

A bit late, but I think the evidence which CFLarsen demands is here, or at least a reference to it.

Hemant Mehta, (the e-bay atheist) posts here sometimes as The Friendly Atheist, I believe. I met him at TAM. Great guy! Thanks for the link. Claus (CFLarsen) doesn't really want evidence. He just generates questions like "evidence?" to generate a big brouhaha so we are tricked into thinking he's interested in something other than winning the imaginary game in his head.