Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[articulett]

Bri-- you are confusing opinion for fact again in order to claim that theism is skeptical or logical. Faith is belief without or despite evidence. Science is the opposite of that. Science like skepticism doesn't appeal to the supernatural as an explanation. We understand that is not a way to know anything... it's a dead end to knowledge. When you believe in invisible forms of consciousness or untestable immeasurable forces or anything that is indistinguishable from known human delusions and misperceptions, then you are not applying the tools of skepticism. Most skeptics understand that demons are invented as explanations... you have to believe in them to get "evidence" that convinces you they exist or that someone is possessed with one. All evidence regarding demons is subjective and immeasurable, because there is no evidence that shows how any form of consciousness can exist without a living brain. There is no valid reason for anyone to believe that one does. All evidence is the kind of evidence people use to confirm belief in people talking to the dead, angels, demons, gods, fairies, and probing by aliens.

Having a belief that life exists outside of this planet it is a valid belief based on actual knowledge of life on this planet... how it evolved and how common planets are and stars like our sun. But any conjecture about the nature of that life is nothing more than conjecture... it is not based on anything... moreso for those who truly believe they are being probed by aliens or that alien are controlling their thoughts. There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of such claims... and there are just as many reasons to be skeptical of all beliefs about gods-- humans believe nutty stuff about entities-- they confabulate reasons for that which they don't understand... they plug in the stories of their culture and see evidence for what it is that trusted adults have told them is true.

Most skeptics see this and determine that all such beliefs are mistaken and unskeptical. They are all based on known ways people fool themselves and there is no evidence to suggest that any such beliefs are anything more than people fooling themselves. There is no reason to conclude that your belief in god is more logical or derived more skeptically than Falwell's belief that feminists are the reason for 9-11.

You might think it's perfectly skeptical to believe in gods, demons, or feminists causing men to fly airplanes into buildings-- most skeptics don't. And for some very compelling reasons-- there is no good evidence for the claims-- there is no evidence that anyone has access to divine knowledge or that any invisible forms of consciousness exist or care about you or are communicating with human beings via feelings and faith and psychic connection or prayer or tragedies or cryptic scenarios. Most skeptics understand why people have those beliefs... why they want to pretend they are logical... why they differ from opinions... and why they have no basis in reality. Most skeptics were raised with those beliefs and used confirmation bias to prop up those beliefs and came to the conclusion that such beliefs are misperceptions.

No-- most theists consider "faith" to be good-- not skepticism. I don't think most theists would call themselves skeptics. I think most skeptics would say that faith and feeling are bad ways to know truths. I have no problems with theists calling themselves skeptics... but I certainly doubt most skeptics think that it's rational to have a belief in a god. You can call yourself whatever you want. But that does not mean you are using skepticism when concluding that some god (however nebulously you may define that "god") exists. A belief in god is always a leap of faith just like a belief in any woo-- an opinion is not. The fact that you still confuse the two shows how your beliefs have muddied your thinking on the subject.

 

[articulett]

Skepticism in brief:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

 

[articulett]

And from Judge Jones:

Jones systematically refuted the claims that ID is a "scientific" theory.

• ID is not science because it depends on supernatural forces as explanation for natural phenomena.
• It refutes scientific method and natural causation, but devises rhetorical tricks that it relies on to win adherents to its philosophy rather then scientific method.
• It does not employ scientific research to prove its claims, nor is there a single scientific organization that endorses the claims; in fact scientists collectively and loudly dispel ID's claims.
• "Irreducible complexity" is a flawed attempt to explain biological phenomena by comparing these natural processes to human designed inanimate objects like watches. The comparison is irrelevant and incongruous.

Also, most skeptics subscribe to a naturalistic philosophy... just as most scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Bri-- your claims about god can be used to support even things that you conclude are "woo"-- unsupportable... unbelievable... unlikely... untrue. Therefore, it's not a skeptical approach. It too often can lead to false conclusions. If you want to know the truth rather than believe you have it-- you don't utilize a method known to lead to false conclusions-- discredited conclusions-- supernatural conclusions.

 

[Bri]

I don't think the methodology is much in doubt. There are some who just don't get it, but the rest of us generally do.

The Universe can be explained through natural processes. Conclusions about the Universe and the natural processes within it are best discovered by means of the Scientific method^WP (which Wiki has a reasonable description of).

Care to further elaborate which part of this is not clear?

Yes, please elaborate on what the scientific method might tell us about the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in our solar system, gods, or whether George Bush is a good president. Unfortunately, the scientific method only applies to the falsifiable. We could say that a skeptic isn't allowed to believe in anything that is unfalsifiable, but of course that rules out all sorts of things that self-proclaimed skeptics have opinions about.

If I use the scientific method to determine what a skeptic is or isn't, I come up with the same conclusion as has been stated. In this specific question, a skeptic would use the skeptical means of determining whether or not gods exist. However, one is not excluded from being a skeptic by simply choosing to apply skepticism selectively, within reason. The skeptic should however, recognize they are making an exception to skepticism in whatever area they choose to not apply skeptical principles.

The scientific method doesn't tell us whether gods exist or not. At best, all we can say is that we don't know for certain.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

A belief in a god supposed something not known to exist in the natural world-- a conscious but invisible entity of some sort that can not be measured or detected in any way except through subjective experience and faith. How is that different than the woo you don't believe in. Do you believe in ghosts? Demons? Zeus? Aliens that visit earth and probe humans? Do you believe in ESP? Divining? Most skeptics don't... and they don't believe in gods for the same reason. Most skeptics don't accept "faith" and "feelings" as avenue towards objective truths. They distinguish facts that are the same for everyone from non-facts (opinions, ideals, notions, hypothesis, myths, stories, illusions, and everything else). But you get the two confused. You can believe and have all the opinions and experiences you want regarding the flatness of the earth-- it doesn't change reality one bit. Your beliefs and feelings and personal opinions won't change a skeptics view of the earth at all. And your views of god-- and anyone's views of god shouldn't change a skeptics view on the subject for the same reasons. There is no measurable evidence to give the belief any credence and lots of evidence to conclude that it's one of the many ways people fool themselves.

 

[-Fran-]

You're not interested in things that cannot be proven? I know many self-proclaimed skeptics who regularly hold beliefs without proof -- such beliefs are often known as "opinions." I know a lot of skeptics who have opinions on any number of topics, from whether or not George Bush is a good president to whether abortion is ethical to whether there is intelligent life outside of our solar system. None can be proven, of course, but lots of people have beliefs about them. Some who have beliefs about these things even consider themselves skeptics. You might even be one of them!

I'm not sure I would say that belief and opinion is the same thing. One distinction, I think, is that a belief is not open to change, if it changes it becomes non-belief. Whereas opinions do change frequently, and are still opinions. Beliefs are also based on unsubstanciated things, hence the need to believe in the first place, to have faith. Whereas opinions are based on what we percieve as facts, and we can be wrong or misinterpret the facts, but the opinion is still based on something more substanciated than beliefs are. We don't have to just believe in stuff to form an opinion, we do so based on things we can observe and what we think we actually know (even if it turns out that we were wrong about what we thought we knew).

 

[Bri]

You are taking the approach a skeptic can believe in anything which is not proved otherwise. That's everything by using the principle one cannot prove a negative. I think you miss the boat here altogether.

You misunderstand. There are plenty of beliefs for which there is ample evidence that points one way or the other. Unfortunately, the existence of gods is not one of them.

Skeptical principles are to look for natural explanations for things and to use the scientific process to draw the best conclusions about the nature of things. Just believing willy nilly in things which cannot be disproved is not a skeptical position.

Most wouldn't consider it necessarily unskeptical to believe that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

Bri-- you are being purposefully obtuse now. Whether president Bush is a good president is an opinion... you can devise a measurement and determine what percentage of the population approves of him and what percentage one needs to have to be a good president but it's still an opinion about human defined terms and it's not something that is the same for everybody.

Skepticism can tell us what the nature of life might be on another planet... how it might get started... what the first signs might look like... what sort of planet would support life as we know it... and what sort of template could replicate similarly to DNA... what sort of code. It can't plug in imaginary concepts for people to believe. You can hope and wonder and estimate the odds--but that is not knowledge or truth. Life either exists in some manner as we define life or it does not-- but belief has no part in whether it does or doesn't.

Either there are immeasurable invisible forms of consciousness-- entities without living brains made of matter-- or there isn't. And all the subjective feelings and belief in the world is not evidence to suggest to anyone that they do-- just like all the subjective feelings in the world cannot tell you whether life exists on another planet-- much less the nature of that life. Belief in god not only claims that consciousness can exist without a brain-- but believers claim to know something aobut this invisible immeasurable consciousness-- they even claim it cares about them and what they believe. But no on CAN know that. It's invisible and immeasurable and part of the known ways humans fool themselves.

When someone has a belief that there could be life on another planet... that is based on some very specific knowledge--we KNOW it can happen. We know that organic chemicals of the type found in our universe can generate life. We don't know that life can exist without matter of any kind. It's outrageous to claim that it can and does and that you know about it... or that anyone knows about it. They have to be fooling themselves-- or else they have to have discovered something that no one else is privvy too.

 

[Bri]

I'm not sure I would say that belief and opinion is the same thing.

Nor would I (nor did I). Opinion is a type of belief -- specifically, belief that falls short of positive knowledge.

One distinction, I think, is that a belief is not open to change, if it changes it becomes non-belief.

People change their beliefs all the time.

Beliefs are also based on unsubstanciated things, hence the need to believe in the first place, to have faith. Whereas opinions are based on what we percieve as facts, and we can be wrong or misinterpret the facts, but the opinion is still based on something more substanciated than beliefs are. We don't have to just believe in stuff to form an opinion, we do so based on things we can observe and what we think we actually know (even if it turns out that we were wrong about what we thought we knew).

Both opinion and faith may be substantiated or unsubstantiated.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

Are you describing god belief as an opinion like "George Bush is a bad president"... because most people consider their beliefs a little more than that, Bri.

Yes--but reality does not change based on peoples opinions or beliefs. The facts and the truth are the same irrespective of what you believe.

Believing in a god or that some subjective evidence means that there is a god doesn't make a god any more likely or logical. If you think gods are as likely as demons than I suppose you are being consistent-- but most skeptics disbelieve in such things... most skeptics find no reason to assume that such things exist. We understand such entities to be products of the human imagination.

 

[Bri]

Bri-- you are being purposefully obtuse now. Whether president Bush is a good president is an opinion... you can devise a measurement and determine what percentage of the population approves of him and what percentage one needs to have to be a good president but it's still an opinion about human defined terms and it's not something that is the same for everybody.

Yup! And so is the existence of gods.

Skepticism can tell us what the nature of life might be on another planet... how it might get started... what the first signs might look like... what sort of planet would support life as we know it... and what sort of template could replicate similarly to DNA... what sort of code. It can't plug in imaginary concepts for people to believe. You can hope and wonder and estimate the odds--but that is not knowledge or truth. Life either exists in some manner as we define life or it does not-- but belief has no part in whether it does or doesn't.

Your use of the word "might" indicates that the existence of life outside of the solar system is speculation without evidence of life outside of the solar system.

Either there are immeasurable invisible forms of consciousness-- entities without living brains made of matter-- or there isn't.

And as far as I know, we don't know whether there is or isn't such a being or beings.

And all the subjective feelings and belief in the world is not evidence to suggest to anyone that they do-- just like all the subjective feelings in the world cannot tell you whether life exists on another planet-- much less the nature of that life. Belief in god not only claims that consciousness can exist without a brain-- but believers claim to know something aobut this invisible immeasurable consciousness-- they even claim it cares about them and what they believe. But no on CAN know that. It's invisible and immeasurable and part of the known ways humans fool themselves.

Perhaps some believers claim to know something about God, but most that I've met admit that their belief is based on faith.

When someone has a belief that there could be life on another planet... that is based on some very specific knowledge--we KNOW it can happen.

We know that it can happen insofar as we know that it's not impossible that some other planet has the conditions necessary to support life. However, we don't know of such a planet (since we don't know the exact conditions necessary) and therefore we don't know whether it has happened. We know that it has happened here, but we don't know if it has happened elsewhere.

We know that organic chemicals of the type found in our universe can generate life. We don't know that life can exist without matter of any kind. It's outrageous to claim that it can and does and that you know about it... or that anyone knows about it. They have to be fooling themselves-- or else they have to have discovered something that no one else is privvy too.

I don't know of many theists who claim to know that life exists without matter of any kind. Few claim their belief in the existence in God to be fact rather than faith-based.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

Bri--Skeptics tend to base their beliefs about reality-- the one that is true for everyone-- on facts... I think there have been plenty of definitions... I just think you ignore the ones you don't like while tossing up a nebulous one of your own that is useless... just so you can fit in your beliefs under the umbrella.

Most skeptics here have weighed in and said that they don't find that people who believe in gods are examining that belief as critically as they do other beliefs that most skeptics don't believe in-- demons, for example. The powers of diviners. You might think diviners are being perfectly skeptical and demon believers and those who believe in all sorts of gods with all sorts of immeasurable characteristics. Most skeptics don't think so. Most skeptics conclude that believers in these things believe for reasons other than logic or reason or evidence. Most skeptics conclude that people who believe in gods believe for reasons similar to those who believe that Sylvia Browne has psychic power. You have given us no reason to conclude otherwise... just a weird semantic game that confuses facts with opinions and anecdote with evidence .

Clearly, you think that it can be perfectly skeptical to conclude that there is an invisible form of consciousness without a brain that communicates with humans. I don't. I think that is garden variety woo-- a culturally induced conclusion supported by confirmation biased evidenced-- a conclusion that is not supported by reality or anything known in the natural world--a common way that people fool themselves and pretend that they believe things for rational reasons when that is not the case.

 

[Bri]

Yes--but reality does not change based on peoples opinions or beliefs. The facts and the truth are the same irrespective of what you believe.

Agreed. The existence of a god is either true or false regardless of belief that one exists or belief that none exist.

Believing in a god or that some subjective evidence means that there is a god doesn't make a god any more likely or logical.

I agree that believing that some subjective evidence means that there is a god is not a logical position. However, there are many theists (probably the vast majority) who understand that, hence they refer to their belief as "faith-based" rather than "fact-based."

If you think gods are as likely as demons than I suppose you are being consistent-- but most skeptics disbelieve in such things... most skeptics find no reason to assume that such things exist. We understand such entities to be products of the human imagination.

I find no reason to assume that gods or demons exist. Nor do I assume that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system. I think there are few people who assume any of those things.

-Bri

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, please elaborate on what the scientific method might tell us about the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in our solar system, gods, or whether George Bush is a good president. Unfortunately, the scientific method only applies to the falsifiable. We could say that a skeptic isn't allowed to believe in anything that is unfalsifiable, but of course that rules out all sorts of things that self-proclaimed skeptics have opinions about.



The scientific method doesn't tell us whether gods exist or not. At best, all we can say is that we don't know for certain.

-Bri

For starters you could read what has already been posted. Because I most certainly have addressed the last statement consistently throughout this thread.

Following the evidence, the best explanation for gods is that such beliefs were made up by people. There is no evidence suggesting god beliefs are the result of actual gods.

In purely scientific terms you can describe a god which is not testable. That would be a god who either covered its tracks or never interacted with the Universe once setting things in motion.

Such a defined god is not the god of any religion except perhaps those wishing to keep their god beliefs despite overwhelming evidence such beliefs are myths. Rather than evaluate the actual evidence, some people conveniently changed the definition of god.

Your naive denial that the best one can say is we don't know might suit your dogmatic beliefs. It doesn't however, fit with what the evidence is.

Science has a lot to say about the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. If you don't know that you need to read a bit more current astronomy.

Determining whether GWB is a terrible president using science, all you need to do is decide which criteria you wish to use to measure good and bad by. Science can't choose the values but science can investigate the process of how cultures and/or individuals determine their values. Science cannot determine inherent good and evil, but given the same criteria the individual or group determines it by, science can measure what needs to be measured using those criteria. An individual does the very same thing when one makes a value judgment. One has criteria by which one measures even if one doesn't verbalize those criteria as the determination is made.

 

[articulett]

So-- faith based claims are the opposite of fact based claims... the best we can say is NOT that we don't know for certain-- the best we can say is that there is NO evidence for any kind of consciousness that exists absent a living material brain-- none-- not for gods, souls, demons, thetans, hobgoblins, Satan, Incubi or any such things. None. We know people invent these things to explain what they don't understand. The best a skeptic can do is to assume all such entities are human inventions until or unless the evidence shows otherwise. A skeptic doesn't mean being a fence sitter. It means using the tools of science and skepticism to understand the truth (the one that is the same or everyone) as best as you can. That truth appears to be that all invisible forms of consciousness are human inventions-- imaginary-- THAT is what the evidence shows. I mean Randi illustrates how very easy it is to get people to believe in such things-- whether it's talking to the dead, ESP, or some other mystical notion.

 

[articulett]

But faith based beliefs are not part of the skeptical approach. Therefore, I think we can all conclude that those who have such beliefs are not applying skepticism to those beliefs-- they are protecting those beliefs from the skeptical scrutiny they might give similar claims regarding other gods or demons or thetans. Believers might consider themselves skeptics... and most skeptics might consider them skeptics... but I suspect that most skeptics and theists would agree that they are putting their beliefs outside the scrutiny of skepticism for some reason--

 

[articulett]

I think belief in gods does point one way-- the same way as belief in demons and belief in Zeus and belief in sprites and belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of god. I think all such beliefs point directly to culturally derived stories propped up by the notion that faith is good and you can feel the truth and other methods known to produce confirmation bias. Certainly none are based in fact. There is no logical reason to believe any such claims are true. There is no reason to believe that anything divine exists-- anything supernatural-- any invisible form of consciousness. So most skeptics don't.

To most skeptics the logical conclusion is that all such claims are false or useless or not based in reality--not part of the truth that is the same for everybody-- until or unless evidence shows otherwise. The truth tends to be amazing at generating evidence for itself. Imaginary things never do... just semantics and spin and manipulation and defensiveness.

 

[Bri]

Bri--Skeptics tend to base their beliefs about reality-- the one that is true for everyone-- on facts... I think there have been plenty of definitions... I just think you ignore the ones you don't like while tossing up a nebulous one of your own that is useless... just so you can fit in your beliefs under the umbrella.

First, I don't think I've stated my personal beliefs (nor are they relevant to the discussion). Second, if someone has posted a definition of "skeptic" that is specific enough to exclude theists but still allow for opinions about things for which there is no definitive evidence, I must have missed it. Please repost it.

You have given us no reason to conclude otherwise... just a weird semantic game that confuses facts with opinions and anecdote with evidence .

There is no evidence that would provide a compelling reason to conclude either way. That's why beliefs for or against the existence of gods are opinion rather than a fact.

-Bri

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You misunderstand. There are plenty of beliefs for which there is ample evidence that points one way or the other. Unfortunately, the existence of gods is not one of them.

Nonsense, utter nonsense! By this conclusion you would have to say there is no evidence pointing to Pele or Zeus existing one way or the other. That's ludicrous!

Most wouldn't consider it necessarily unskeptical to believe that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system.

-Bri

Of course not. There is evidence of life in the Universe. It's all over the Earth. The Universe is staggeringly large. To think life elsewhere wasn't possible, including intelligent life, would be counter to the evidence.

Traditional Biblical egocentrism is the thing which gets in people's way thinking about the fact life on Earth is evidence. That may be why you are looking at the nature of the evidence differently than I am.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no evidence that would provide a compelling reason to conclude either way. ...

-Bri

Really, no evidence? Pick a god, let's just see.