Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Belz...]

I agree. In fact, that's what I've been arguing although I suspect you don't mean it as you said it. I don't think belief has anything to do with skepticism. Skepticism has to do with understanding the nature of all of the evidence, not necessarily with the belief that you arrive at based on that evidence.

You don't arrive at a belief based on evidence. You arrive at a conclusion.

Particularly in cases where the evidence is not definitive (i.e. where the belief is an opinion) a belief is not "unskeptical" by any definition I can think of.

If there is no evidence, the reasonable course of action is to suspend judgment, not pick the choice you prefer.

I posted the definition of argument from ignorance and the article I got it from the last time you made this accusation. I suggest you read up.

I did. What you are saying is that, even if we show that all the gods we know of do not exist, it doesn't mean that no god exists.

You seem to be implying that this is a licence to believe in gods in general. It isn't, for the reason I mentioned above.

Specifically, pointing out that there is no empirical evidence to support a proposition (in this case, the proposition "no gods exist") is not considered an argument from ignorance.

It is if you're using that to support your conclusion that there IS a god. And, if you aren't, why do you continue to point it out ?

Please forgive me if the tone of my post is less than civil, but it is exasperating to point out and reference where your accusations are unfounded only to have you continue to make them over and over again.

Which "accusations" am I making ? The argument from ignorance thing ? If you're not saying these things as an argument, then I'll retract that. However, if you're not making an argument, I don't understand why you're posting at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Claus, we have reached the point where we are simply repeating our arguments. I view the world differently than you. You have not convinced me I'm wrong. And I don't see that you will ever understand my point of view.

In the meantime I would like to clarify that all of my comments were intended to be hypothetical and while I have opinions about Deism and god beliefs, I don't have an opinion about Hal's beliefs since we only have your interpretation of those beliefs and nothing directly from him.

 

[articulett]

That looks like an unfalsifiable claim to me, so of course "the door is open" that it's true. If someone is of the opinion that God's name is Sandy (for whatever reason -- perhaps God spoke to them personally and told them that) then I can't think of a definition that would allow me to claim that they're not being skeptical.

I don't think there is a definition for "skepticism" that would allow you to hold certain opinions but not others in matters where there is no significant evidence either way. If you wish to claim otherwise, please post your definition.

-Bri

I told you... Occam's razor. Skeptics use occam's razor... we don't believe that anyone could have a god telling them his name is Sandy. You are using belief in god or evidence that people believe god talks to them as evidence for god. It's only evidence that people believe crazy things... not evidence of any god! It's like the Randi' video of Peter Popoff when they ask a woman if she believes her cancer is cured and she says, "yes, because god never lies"-- That is a bad inference based on nothing measurable-- god is built on inferences used as evidence to prop up the belief and woo more believers. A skeptic would never conclude "god never lies" without concluding god was a possibility. And then the question would be does Peter Popoff deceive? Gullibility and belief keep you ignorant as to even the right questions to ask. For a skeptic, God is not a possibility until or unless some invisible form of consciousness is shown to exist because positing such a reality defies Occam's razor. Even if everybody believes it might be true--that is not evidence of anything except how readily people believe nonsense. It isn't evidence for the invisible unknowable magic man in the sky!

And I give up on you, Claus. I don't care about Hal's belief. The act of believing in such things means that you have already accepted that "magic can be true"--that "consciousness can exist without a brain"--that some woo IS true woo until disproven. A skeptic says it's all WOO until the evidence shows otherwise. It's not a debate about labels. It's a questions as to why most skeptics are atheists and doesn't skepticism tend to lead to convergent opinions on the subject as well as a clearer understanding of what is real.

Is it skeptical to believe in the supernatural-- no.
Is it skeptical to believe in magic-- no
Is it skeptical to believe that consciousness can exist without a brain-- no.

It doesn't matter what evidence is claimed. There is no evidence that any of the above CAN be true... we have tons of evidence that people are readily fooled by such things-- it's the magician's trick... inferences treated as evidence... the same thing that makes all believers in woo believe as they do and believe that their beliefs are "rational". Believers use opinions as evidence even though god is a logical impossibility... there is no way to know about an "unknowable thing"--it's all made up. The logical position is that all such beliefs are based in illogic... logical fallacies... etc. None of this is evidence for god existing or demons or psychic powers or anything having to do with any of these things. As a skeptic, I call them all woo... because there is NO evidence that they are anything but woo. None. And tons of evidence as to how people are soo soo easy to fool via "magic".

If you cannot understand this it's because your faith has made you too illogical to do so. It doesn't make any gods more likely to be true.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, we have reached the point where we are simply repeating our arguments. I view the world differently than you. You have not convinced me I'm wrong. And I don't see that you will ever understand my point of view.

In the meantime I would like to clarify that all of my comments were intended to be hypothetical and while I have opinions about Deism and god beliefs, I don't have an opinion about Hal's beliefs since we only have your interpretation of those beliefs and nothing directly from him.

If that's your position.

 

[articulett]

I posted the definition of argument from ignorance and the article I got it from the last time you made this accusation. I suggest you read up. Specifically, pointing out that there is no empirical evidence to support a proposition (in this case, the proposition "no gods exist") is not considered an argument from ignorance.

No, you need to read up instead of advising others. You keep using an argument from ignorance. Nobody except NeilC seems to think you are making sense. The majority seem to be on the same page here... Voidx was even nominated in a very well written post. The theists just have a faith that makes them too illogical to follow the rules of logic. You are pretending some form of magic is as likely to be true as all perceived magic being illusions. A skeptics position is that all perceived magic is an illusion until proven otherwise.

Some god is not as likely as no god in the same way some demons are not as likely as no demons.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You mean that the belief is the result of some amount of speculation based on scarce and subjective evidence? Such as the calculation of the probability of the existence of intelligent aliens based on very little knowledge of the conditions necessary for intelligent life to emerge?

Oh, I thought you said empirical evidence. Looking back, you did say empirical evidence! See, you can't have it both ways. Sure, there is some evidence of both beliefs, but no empirical evidence. So by what criteria are you including some non-empirical evidence and excluding other non-empirical evidence?

Why I am not giving up is beyond me. The issue here is about facts, not opinions. You are wrong, and not getting the facts here. With Claus, we were arguing opinion and perspective. In this case you are lacking insight into a key scientific principle. Trust us (me and many other knowledgeable people in this thread) and try to understand this very important key scientific principle, what is empirical evidence. You really are experiencing a brain block here.

Life on Earth is empirical evidence that there is intelligent life in the Universe. It's a very small sample size. That doesn't make it not empirical.

In the example I gave of something not being evidence, it was the conclusion that was not evidence. I can verify the fact that life is empirically observed on planet Earth and that one species is relatively intelligent.

Draw whatever conclusions you want about what that implies about other intelligent life in the Universe. Most scientists would conclude from four pieces of evidence: the size of the Universe, the number of stars which we are finding that have planetary systems, the existence of life on at least one of the planets in the Universe, and the time the Universe has been in existence that there is at least some probability Earth is not unique in respect to harboring intelligent life.

No one is talking proof, certainty, or even agreeing on the actual probability other than it is greater than zero.

Having some inner sensation, an emotion, a dream, a thought, are all empirical things which can be verified.

Believing that inner sensation, emotion, dream, or thought is caused by the action of a god is not verifiable. The inner sensation, emotion, dream, or thought is empirical evidence. The belief it is god causing the inner sensation, emotion, dream, or thought is a conclusion. The evidence is not the conclusion. The conclusion is based on the evidence but it doesn't become the evidence.

You can conclude there isn't enough evidence to know if the probability of life outside of this solar system is greater than zero. I'm pretty sure you would be in the minority if you did so because the conclusion only is about the probability of intelligent life beyond Earth, the conclusion isn't that there is life. In this case, the conclusion is not the evidence. The evidence is life exists on at least one planet.

In the god belief case, the conclusion is not the evidence. The evidence is some kind of inner brain activity. It is not verifiable that individual's conclusion is correct. I can verify what I observe on this planet. I can verify your brain activity. I cannot verify the cause you believe affects your brain activity.

I've never said either belief is unknowable. I said that the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system is unfalsifiable, just like the existence of gods (that is, we can likely never prove that they don't exist, even if they don't). Both are knowable. We might someday discover an alien or a god (specifically, if an omnipotent god wanted us to know of its existence, it could make itself known to us).

Here again, you do not understand what unfalsifiable means. It isn't just my opinion. Falsifiability is a scientific principle. You need to learn what it means whether you take our word for it that you don't get it or don't take our word for it. Take the time to find out. It is an important scientific concept and the definition in science isn't subject to opinion.

Falsifiable doesn't mean we do or don't know today. It means we can or cannot ever know. Given advances in technology, we could discover life on other planets. Given advances in technology, we could not discover the hypothetical gods science has defined as outside of the natural Universe.**


(**Which is not to say we can't make a reasonable determination human god beliefs are beliefs in myths.)


I'll let someone else explain using the scientific process vs faith which is what you are asking when you ask what is and isn't skeptical. But I will add that it isn't the conclusion which makes a belief consistent with skepticism. It is what that belief is based on.

 

[CFLarsen]

With Claus, we were arguing opinion and perspective.

No, we were not.

We were discussing your erroneous perceptions of deists and how you, also erroneously, called them unskeptical.

If you now want to change that to "oh, it was just my opinion after all", then fine. Dishonest of you, but - fine.

Just stop calling people unskeptical because you don't agree with what they believe.

 

[schlitt]

CFLarsen, i am interested in hearing what you consider a skeptic to be.
Can you give a definition?

How does evidence come into the equation?

What does a skeptic require before accepting something as true?

Do you consider it skeptical to take on a belief that has no evidence?

 

[CFLarsen]

CFLarsen, i am interested in hearing what you consider a skeptic to be.
Can you give a definition?

How does evidence come into the equation?

What does a skeptic require before accepting something as true?

Do you consider it skeptical to take on a belief that has no evidence?

Take a look at this.

 

[Bri]

If there is no evidence, the reasonable course of action is to suspend judgment, not pick the choice you prefer.

Then you are suggesting that the only skeptical position would be agnostic about matters for which there is no conclusive evidence. That's fine, but also excludes many beliefs that others have already said are "skeptical."

Personally, I disagree -- I think it is perfectly compatible with skepticism to have opinions on nearly any subject for which there is no conclusive evidence.

What you are saying is that, even if we show that all the gods we know of do not exist, it doesn't mean that no god exists.

Close enough. But that has nothing to do with argument from ignorance.

You seem to be implying that this is a licence to believe in gods in general. It isn't, for the reason I mentioned above.

I don't know what you mean by "license" here. But the argument from ignorance would be of the form: "The fact that there is no evidence that there are no gods is proof that there are gods." I didn't make any such argument -- I never claimed that there is proof that there are gods at all.

It is if you're using that to support your conclusion that there IS a god.

Yes, IF I used that as proof that there IS a god, it would have been an argument from ignorance, but I didn't. I've never concluded that there IS a god. I never even indicated that I believe that there IS a god.

And, if you aren't, why do you continue to point it out ?

To find out, you may want to read the post to which I was responding. Hint: I was answering skeptigirl's question "Can you answer then, why a scientist should not use all the available empirical evidence and conclude, the evidence is overwhelming that gods do not exist?"

The answer was because there is no available empirical evidence that there are no gods from which to make such a conclusion. Is the lack of empirical evidence proof that gods exist? Of course not. I never indicated it was.

Which "accusations" am I making ? The argument from ignorance thing ? If you're not saying these things as an argument, then I'll retract that. However, if you're not making an argument, I don't understand why you're posting at all.

Thank you for retracting it.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

You are pretending some form of magic is as likely to be true as all perceived magic being illusions.

Blatant rubbish. I never pretended any such thing.

You and others have made a claim. Your claim was that it can be objectively determined whether a particular proposition is "skeptical" or not. I simply asked for evidence -- a definition of "skeptical" -- which supports your claim.

You are able to conclude that certain propositions are skeptical ("intelligent aliens exist", "no gods exist") and that other propositions are not skeptical ("a god exists"). But you don't seem willing or able to provide a clear definition to support your conclusions or your claim.

Ironically, since your arguments seem to indicate that a "skeptical" proposition must include the support of objective evidence, it would appear that your claim is itself not a skeptical proposition since you have failed to produce the evidence.

But I'll wait until you actually post a definition before making that determination.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

Blatant rubbish. I never pretended any such thing.

You and others have made a claim. Your claim was that it can be objectively determined whether a particular proposition is "skeptical" or not. I simply asked for evidence -- a definition of "skeptical" -- which supports your claim.

You are able to conclude that certain propositions are skeptical ("intelligent aliens exist", "no gods exist") and that other propositions are not skeptical ("a god exists"). But you don't seem willing or able to provide a clear definition to support your conclusions or your claim.

Ironically, since your arguments seem to indicate that a "skeptical" proposition must include the support of objective evidence, it would appear that your claim is itself not a skeptical proposition since you have failed to produce the evidence.

But I'll wait until you actually post a definition before making that determination.

-Bri

Moby's definition wasn't good? The links weren't good? Skeptics utilize Occam's razor--the supernatural is never used as an explanation--science does not invoke the supernatural as explanation. Until consciousness can be shown to exist absent a brain, the logical position is that there is no such thing just as, until ESP is demonstrated to exist, the logical position is that there is no such thing. Everyone else seems to get it. You are only fooling yourself. And nobody thinks you are as polite or logical as you seem to imagine.

Skepticism like science doe NOT posit the supernatural. We don't have opinions or beliefs about supernatural things... because we know they are all illusions--products of the human mind and/or can be treated as such if we actually want to understand what is going on. The supernatural has never been an explanation. We've all said it. You can't hear it. Belief in something is NOT evidence that such a thing exists. Opinions are not beliefs. When positing life on another planet, we are talking about life that is material-- we know of know other types of life. We know that material life can exist. The very fact that you cannot see the difference between have an opinion about the prospect of life on other planets and an opinion about whether a magic sky fairy might be giving someone signals that are meaningful just proves the point. You are clearly trying to make a belief in a god logical. It isn't. It's on par with a belief in demons or a belief that some real psychics exist.

Anyone who believes that god or anything supernatural explains something is taking a nonskeptical position requiring a leap in faith. There can not be evidence for invisible immeasurable things. They are identical to imaginary things so skeptics treat them as such.

 

[schlitt]

Take a look at this.

Good article.

I do not see how it backs up your claim that it is skeptical to believe something that has no evidence, as long as no evidence is claimed.

 

[articulett]

No, we were not.

We were discussing your erroneous perceptions of deists and how you, also erroneously, called them unskeptical.

If you now want to change that to "oh, it was just my opinion after all", then fine. Dishonest of you, but - fine.

Just stop calling people unskeptical because you don't agree with what they believe.

It's not erroneous to conclude that those who believe in supernatural things are positing a reality that violates occam's razor-- the scientific method. God beliefs are opinions about reality. They are not opinions like "ice cream is good". They are beliefs like "the earth is flat". That is an opinion about reality that is wrong. God beliefs are an opinion about reality that have no merit--they are on par with delusions and dreams and belief in demons...whether evidence is claimed or not. You can still be a skeptic, but that doesn't mean your positing a supernatural entity is skeptical. It sure doesn't give a skeptic any reason to think such an entity might exist in reality.

Quit calling her wrong. She's not. You mistate things that people say and then argue a strawman version of what was actually said. You brought in Hal to make a point and he's not relevant... the only thing relevant is whether it's skeptical or logical or a violation of logic to believe in the supernatural--anything supernatural. Or does one have to claim to have evidence before it gets scrutiny.

Most of us think it's illogical to posit a supernatural entity whether evidence is claimed or not.

 

[articulett]

Good article.

I do not see how it backs up your claim that it is skeptical to believe something that has no evidence, as long as no evidence is claimed.

I agree on both counts. From the article:

Mystical “truths,” by their nature, must be solely personal, and they can have no possible external validation. Each has equal claim to truth. Tea leaf reading and astrology and Buddhism; each is equally sound or unsound if we judge by the absence of related evidence. This is not intended to disparage any one of the faiths; merely to note the impossibility of verifying their correctness. The mystic is in a paradoxical position. When he seeks external support for his views he must turn to external arguments, and he denies mysticism in the process. External validation is, by definition, impossible for the mystic.
​

Science leads us toward rationalism: the basing of conclusions on the scientific method. For example, how do we know the Earth is round?:

1. The shadow on the moon is round.
2. The mast of a ship is the last thing seen as it sails off the horizon.
3. The horizon is curved.
4. Photographs from space.

The skeptic position is always towards the evidence--it continually makes itself clear... and so skeptics and science will converge on the nature of our world--just as they have with evolution, DNA, the shape of our world, gravity, and everything else we've come to know. There just is no evidence for even positing the existence of "magic".

 

[articulett]

So which is the more skeptical position

1. Something supernatural like a god or esp or demons might exist in some way
or
2. All such things are illusions of the human mind.

I think for most skeptics it's the latter. The former cannot lead to any further understanding... it's a recipe for reaching false conclusions.

 

[CFLarsen]

Good article.

You haven't read it before?

I do not see how it backs up your claim that it is skeptical to believe something that has no evidence, as long as no evidence is claimed.

Do you understand the point about how skepticism is a vital part of science?

Also, the point about how science cannot deal with things that don't exist, and therefore cannot be tested?

It's not erroneous to conclude that those who believe in supernatural things are positing a reality that violates occam's razor-- the scientific method. God beliefs are opinions about reality. They are not opinions like "ice cream is good". They are beliefs like "the earth is flat". That is an opinion about reality that is wrong. God beliefs are an opinion about reality that have no merit--they are on par with delusions and dreams and belief in demons...whether evidence is claimed or not. You can still be a skeptic, but that doesn't mean your positing a supernatural entity is skeptical. It sure doesn't give a skeptic any reason to think such an entity might exist in reality.

Quit calling her wrong. She's not. You mistate things that people say and then argue a strawman version of what was actually said. You brought in Hal to make a point and he's not relevant... the only thing relevant is whether it's skeptical or logical or a violation of logic to believe in the supernatural--anything supernatural. Or does one have to claim to have evidence before it gets scrutiny.

Most of us think it's illogical to posit a supernatural entity whether evidence is claimed or not.

Do you believe in something non-evidential?

What gave you the idea that I have no reason to be skeptical of demon possession? Just point to the post of mine and explain briefly your reasons.

Where did I say that a god belief can be derived logically or skeptically?

I answered your questions. Please answer mine. You can forget about Hal, because it is obvious that you cannot back up your claims with evidence.

 

[Bri]

Life on Earth is empirical evidence that there is intelligent life in the Universe. It's a very small sample size. That doesn't make it not empirical.

I thought you had this down at one time, so I'm going to explain it once more. I was not talking about intelligent life in the universe. I was talking about intelligent life outside of our solar system. There is a difference.

It might make it easier if we substitute "intelligent life outside of our solar system" with the word "aliens." Now, I was asking whether it is skeptical to believe that aliens exist. Life here on earth is not empirical evidence of aliens. It is empirical evidence of intelligent life in the universe, of which we and aliens would both be subsets. There is no empirical evidence of aliens.

Yes, we can say that aliens are possible. But we don't know the conditions that gave rise to life here on Earth, so we don't know the probability that life exists elsewhere. If we knew it was less than 50% (as many scientists believe), then that would be evidence that aliens don't exist. If we knew it was more than 50% (as other scientists believe), then that would be evidence that aliens do exist. But since we don't have a clue as to what the probability might be between 0% and 100%, there is no evidence one way or the other.

Most scientists would conclude from four pieces of evidence: the size of the Universe, the number of stars which we are finding that have planetary systems, the existence of life on at least one of the planets in the Universe, and the time the Universe has been in existence that there is at least some probability Earth is not unique in respect to harboring intelligent life.

Sure, there is some probability (between 0% and 100%) that the Earth is not unique in respect to harboring intelligent life. But we have no idea what that probability is.

No one is talking proof, certainty, or even agreeing on the actual probability other than it is greater than zero.

You understand that "greater than zero" probability means "possible" right? We also know that the probability that gods exist is greater than 0% -- that it is possible.

That was the sole purpose of my analogy. I generally agree with the rest of your discussion about the difference between evidence and the conclusions drawn from it.

Here again, you do not understand what unfalsifiable means. It isn't just my opinion. Falsifiability is a scientific principle. You need to learn what it means whether you take our word for it that you don't get it or don't take our word for it. Take the time to find out. It is an important scientific concept and the definition in science isn't subject to opinion.

I know what it means. In case you don't (from Wikipedia):

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being disproved under hypothetical circumstances.

Falsifiable doesn't mean we do or don't know today.

Right.

It means we can or cannot ever know.

Your point that it doesn't mean that we cannot know today but rather that we can never know is correct.

However, falsifiabile doesn't mean that a proposition can be shown to be true. It means that a proposition can be shown to be false. There is a difference.

Unfalsifiable means that it cannot be shown to be false. We may or may not be able to show something that is unfalsifiable to be true.

Given advances in technology, we could discover life on other planets.

Of course, the fact that we could discover life on other planets doesn't make the proposition falsifiable. Falsifiability has to do with proving the proposition false, not proving it true. There is no practical way to prove the proposition that aliens exist to be false (i.e. there is no way to prove that there are no aliens).

Given advances in technology, we could not discover the hypothetical gods science has defined as outside of the natural Universe.**

Again with the "hypothetical gods science has defined as outside of the natural Universe." You do realize that there are other types of gods than a deist god that never interacts with the universe, right? I am not, nor have I ever in this thread, limited my definition of god to one that is entirely outside of the natural universe. As I've said countless times, it is possible that a god exists that interacts with the natural universe. We can potentially discover this sort of god if it chose to make itself known to us. But it is unfalsifiable in the same way that aliens are -- we can never prove it false. If it is omnipotent, it could hide from us if it so chose (i.e. there is no way to prove that there are no gods).

I'll let someone else explain using the scientific process vs faith which is what you are asking when you ask what is and isn't skeptical. But I will add that it isn't the conclusion which makes a belief consistent with skepticism. It is what that belief is based on.

I'm simply asking for a definition of "skepticism" that allows you to determine whether a particular proposition is skeptical. If you don't know the answer, then consider that your claim that it can be done objectively is based on faith rather than evidence.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

You haven't read it before?



Do you understand the point about how skepticism is a vital part of science?

Also, the point about how science cannot deal with things that don't exist, and therefore cannot be tested?



Do you believe in something non-evidential?

What gave you the idea that I have no reason to be skeptical of demon possession? Just point to the post of mine and explain briefly your reasons.

Where did I say that a god belief can be derived logically or skeptically?

I answered your questions. Please answer mine. You can forget about Hal, because it is obvious that you cannot back up your claims with evidence.

I don't even know what you are talking about or the point you are trying to make. I don't have any beliefs that posit the existence of something supernatural that humans can't understand--I am sure all gods are illusions--just like all demons--and all psychic powers. None of them have their basis in reality. What you are saying is that skeptics CAN believe in gods so long as they don't claim to have evidence-- what the rest of us are saying is that by doing so, they are positing a supernatural world--not one based on evidence where consciousness only exists in a living brain.

Maybe you and Bri can understand each other. Do you understand Bri? Do those who disagree with the majority (skepticgirl, voidx, Belz, schlitt, lonewolf, Fran, me, Georg, et. al) agree with each other? Do you understand each other's points (CFLarsen, Beth, Egg, Bri, NeilC).

Btw, Claus,-- I agree we can't address something unless a claim is made--but that doesn't mean it's logical to believe in some form of consciousness existing absent a brain substrate.

 

[articulett]

I'm simply asking for a definition of "skepticism" that allows you to determine whether a particular proposition is skeptical. If you don't know the answer, then consider that your claim that it can be done objectively is based on faith rather than evidence.

-Bri

We have... you can't hear it. You don't want to. CFLarsen posted a manifesto. Skeptics don't posit the existence of consciousness outside of a brain, because we know that that is a recipe for NOT understanding something-- it's never been a factual explanation for anything. You use spin to keep from hearing it and pretending that it means that it's somehow logical or skeptical to posit a belief in a god. Semantics of the silly.

All gods are faith based.

All logic is evidence based.

Belief in something is NOT evidence of that something.