Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[schlitt]

Connection issues.
Double post.

 

[schlitt]

You haven't read it before?

No i had not read that particular article before.

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

Yes.

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

Yes, this is common sense. However, this does not mean that it is reasonable to accept a belief which has no evidence and no way of being tested.

It is reasonable (and within the boundaries of skeptical methodology) to state "Given the fact the claim cannot currently be tested, there is no way to prove or disprove the claim. Therefore i shall adopt an open position to the possibility of truth."

It would be unreasonable (and not true to skeptical methodology) to state "This claim is untestable, and cannot be proven wrong, therefore i believe it is 100% true."

A skeptic would require evidence which would amount to a solid conclusion before claiming 100% certainty. This level of certainty could never be reached for something that does not have any evidence. (whether or not evidence is claimed is irrelevant, because the fact remains there is none)

 

[Mobyseven]

Mobyseven,

I learned in grade school not to use a derivative of the word I'm defining in a definition. It doesn't tell you much if you don't already know what the word means. In this case, the definition tells us nothing of the process known as "skepticism" by which you apparently can determine if a belief is "skeptical" or not.

So please define "skepticism" as I requested about 20 pages ago. Specifically, what definition of "skepticism" are you using to conclude that a skeptic should be an atheist, and that having an opinion that there is a god is necessarily irrational while having an opinion that there are no gods is not?

-Bri

Skepticism as is being used here refers to the method by which the universe is observed and submitted to systematic investigation. When evaluating possible beliefs or claims, skepticism requires the use of valid reasoning (whether deductive, inductive, or abductive) with all reasons being supported by valid evidence of some nature. Once the argument is complete, it can be analysed for structural integrity and evaluated to ensure that the premises from which the conclusion is derived are true.

That is my definition - as I have written it up on the spot it may not be entirely accurate, and I welcome criticism. I think I've done a pretty good job though.

If you want to know more about skepticism, I suggest you read The Demon Haunted World (Carl Sagan), Why People Believe Weird Things (Michael Shermer), and perhaps The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Karl Popper).

Keep in mind that the only person who seems not to have a clue what we're discussing when we refer to skepticism is you - I imagine that if others here were to write their definition of skepticism, it would look very similar to mine.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

I didn't ask if you had any beliefs that posit the existence of something supernaturals that humans can't understand. I asked if you believe in something non-evidential. Do you?

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.

All logic is evidence based.

You reject logic based on philosophy?

No i had not read that particular article before.

Just out of curiosity: What material have you read about scientific skepticism?

Yes.
...
Yes, this is common sense.

Then you should have your answers. However:

However, this does not mean that it is reasonable to accept a belief which has no evidence and no way of being tested.

It is reasonable (and within the boundaries of skeptical methodology) to state "Given the fact the claim cannot currently be tested, there is no way to prove or disprove the claim. Therefore i shall adopt an open position to the possibility of truth."

It would be unreasonable (and not true to skeptical methodology) to state "This claim is untestable, and cannot be proven wrong, therefore i believe it is 100% true."

A skeptic would require evidence which would amount to a solid conclusion before claiming 100% certainty. This level of certainty could never be reached for something that does not have any evidence. (whether or not evidence is claimed is irrelevant, because the fact remains there is none)

You got the second and third ones right, but not the first and last. In the first, you confuse skepticism with what you personally find reasonable. What you can't fathom yourself, you apply to skepticism in general. Exactly what articulett and skeptigirl have been doing.

In the last, you make the mistake of thinking a skeptic would claim 100% certainty. A skeptic would never do that. A skeptic would always be open to the possibility that he was wrong, but he would do it based on new evidence.

If no evidence was even claimed, it is not unreasonable - skeptically - to believe in it. The reason it is called scientific skepticism is because of the evidence. If no evidence is claimed, it falls outside what we are concerned with.

Read Shermer's article again, and try to understand it this time.

 

[Mobyseven]

All logic is evidence based.

A nitpick - I think you mean that science is evidence based.

Logic is an internally consistent axiomatic system. It is applicable to the real world, but it is not based on evidence.

 

[Bri]

Skepticism as is being used here refers to the method by which the universe is observed and submitted to systematic investigation. When evaluating possible beliefs or claims, skepticism requires the use of valid reasoning (whether deductive, inductive, or abductive) with all reasons being supported by valid evidence of some nature. Once the argument is complete, it can be analysed for structural integrity and evaluated to ensure that the premises from which the conclusion is derived are true.

Thanks! You could have saved a lot of time if you had posted that 20 pages ago, but I do appreciate it nonetheless.

NOW...what if there is valid evidence both for and against a particular proposition P? In that case, both P and ~P (not P) are supported by evidence, are they not? It seems that it would be possible for both P and ~P to be skeptical according to your definition. Do you disagree?

That is my definition - as I have written it up on the spot it may not be entirely accurate, and I welcome criticism. I think I've done a pretty good job though.

I agree, you have. And I meant "thanks" sincerely.

If you want to know more about skepticism, I suggest you read The Demon Haunted World (Carl Sagan), Why People Believe Weird Things (Michael Shermer), and perhaps The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Karl Popper).

Thanks, I'm aware of all of those.

Keep in mind that the only person who seems not to have a clue what we're discussing when we refer to skepticism is you - I imagine that if others here were to write their definition of skepticism, it would look very similar to mine.

No, I have a very good clue as to what skepticism usually means. I simply wanted a definition that would support the notion that one can determine objectively which of a given set of propositions (P and ~P) is skeptical and which is not (or whether the only skeptical position is to refrain from having no opinion whatsoever in some cases).

I don't think yours allows one to determine that in certain cases, but I would be willing to discuss it if you are willing to do so without personal attacks.

-Bri

 

[Big Les]

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.

The most succinct summary yet of the opposing views apparent in this thread. If I may, I will try to summarise myself;

We seem to agree that;

1. Some people hold a belief in a type of untestable god for which they make no overt claims, and do so purely for their own comfort. This god is quite different to that traditionally posited.

2. Disbelief in god, due to lack of evidence is a sceptical PoV, providing as with all conceivable notions, the mind is kept open to the possibility of evidence emerging.

3. Belief in god is not sceptical per se. Bear with me here, because although I think we've reached this same conclusion, there's more to it and this next is where we diverge.

a) One side in this argument thinks that belief is god is not only not sceptical, but outright unsceptical, because it makes assumptions absent any evidence.

b) The other side insists that though it may not be actively sceptical, it is not unsceptical either, because no overt claims made means that scepticism does not apply.

And the root of this disagreement comes down to what constitutes a "claim". Many of us are of the opinion that stated belief in any god (under any meaningful definition, including deism), automatically assumes the existence of that god, regardless of how well hidden from scientific scrutiny it might be. We therefore emphasise the sceptical default position of disbelief. I know some people disagree with this, and insist that "to believe in" something does not mean to believe that it exists. Therefore they are not likely to accept the argument, and indeed the dictionary definition that this is exactly what it means. In my own turn, this is also a major stumbling block, and one that I see as purely semantic. In other words, the argument is going nowhere, because there is no longer anything to argue about beyond the definitions of words like "god" and "claim".

Is that a fair assessment?

 

[-Fran-]

Is that a fair assessment?

Yes, I think so!

 

[schlitt]

You got the second and third ones right, but not the first and last. In the first, you confuse skepticism with what you personally find reasonable. What you can't fathom yourself, you apply to skepticism in general. Exactly what articulett and skeptigirl have been doing.


In the last, you make the mistake of thinking a skeptic would claim 100% certainty. A skeptic would never do that. A skeptic would always be open to the possibility that he was wrong, but he would do it based on new evidence.

No, i implied it would be a mistake to do so, and once again you fail to see the
point.

If no evidence was even claimed, it is not unreasonable - skeptically - to believe in it. The reason it is called scientific skepticism is because of the evidence. If no evidence is claimed, it falls outside what we are concerned with.

This is where you are completely wrong. The claiming of evidence or not is irrelevant.

CFLarsen, you had a past life in which you were a serial killer, and your name was Mildred Koksmoker. This is untestable, and i do not claim to have evidence.
According to you it is entirely reasonable for me as a skeptic to believe this without evidence.

Read Shermer's article again, and try to understand it this time.

Actually CFLarsen, it appears it is you who needs to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

You persist with the notion that a skeptic does not require evidence. This is clearly wrong. You continuously fail to see that the claiming of evidence or not, is completely irrelevant.

Everyone here understands you simplistic points:

You cannot test something which is not testable, therefore a skeptical scientific standpoint cannot not be applied to a belief which has no evidence and no way to be tested.
However, how can you claim to be skeptical, if skepticism was not applied?

 

[articulett]

I didn't ask if you had any beliefs that posit the existence of something supernaturals that humans can't understand. I asked if you believe in something non-evidential. Do you?

I don't even know what that means. I believe that there is one reality and everything that exists in that reality is measurable on some level. I don not believe there is any evidence in support of any gods, souls, magic, psychics, diviners, demons, homeopathy, chupacabra, etc. I think all of these things and all things with similar type "evidence" are woo-- they are illusions, delusions, misperceptions and false conclusions. But your question is so weird that, as usual, I don't understand it or even if I answered it.

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.

I'm not saying that you aren't skeptical of demon possession. I'm saying that you believe that belief in demon possession is outside the judgment of skepticism so long as no claims are made, right? Just like beliefs in god are outside the judgment or scrutiny of skepticism per your argument.

Everyone else seems to disagree. The logical position is to assume that all such beliefs are based on illogic-- none are based on any evidence involving real gods or supernatural entities. We don't need to hear what someone's evidence is to come to the conclusion that their belief isn't logical or based on truth.

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

You didn't. You just don't think it's incompatible with logic. I think it is. I presupposed the existence of something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. We have no model for consciousness outside of a brain-- just lots and lots of stories, eons of assorted beliefs, and most of them proven mistaken--none of them proven valid.

You reject logic based on philosophy?

I'm not even sure what that means. I reject logic based on philosophical naturalism... Daniel Dennett's philosophy. I accept logic based on EVIDENCE. I reject the supernatural as an explanation for anything. I do not have any supernatural beliefs. It's all woo until or unless evidence shows otherwise. When skeptics and scientists increasingly agree--you can bet you've got an increasingly accurate understanding of the world-- and our world shows no evidence of any gods, demons, or magic.

To me, it always sounds like you are arguing and telling people they are wrong--but they aren't saying what you think they are and you seem to agree for the most part. I think the only disagreement we have (other than your tone) is that you think that a belief is not subject to scrutiny if no evidence is claimed, and the rest of us disagree.

Do you think Hal's belief in a god is evidence at all for an actual god? Do you think there is any valid reason to suppose that consciousness can exist absent matter? Any evidence? Do you think a belief in god is like a preference for vanilla ice cream-- that is, it's not a belief about reality or truth?-- more on par with a "feeling"?

 

[articulett]

A nitpick - I think you mean that science is evidence based.

Logic is an internally consistent axiomatic system. It is applicable to the real world, but it is not based on evidence.

Yes. Science uses evidence to form logical theories and frameworks to enhance accurate understanding of reality. I guess I think of skepticism as a marriage of both logic and science. I agree with your descriptions as well.

 

[articulett]

The most succinct summary yet of the opposing views apparent in this thread. If I may, I will try to summarise myself;

We seem to agree that;

1. Some people hold a belief in a type of untestable god for which they make no overt claims, and do so purely for their own comfort. This god is quite different to that traditionally posited.

2. Disbelief in god, due to lack of evidence is a sceptical PoV, providing as with all conceivable notions, the mind is kept open to the possibility of evidence emerging.

3. Belief in god is not sceptical per se. Bear with me here, because although I think we've reached this same conclusion, there's more to it and this next is where we diverge.

a) One side in this argument thinks that belief is god is not only not sceptical, but outright unsceptical, because it makes assumptions absent any evidence.

b) The other side insists that though it may not be actively sceptical, it is not unsceptical either, because no overt claims made means that scepticism does not apply.

And the root of this disagreement comes down to what constitutes a "claim". Many of us are of the opinion that stated belief in any god (under any meaningful definition, including deism), automatically assumes the existence of that god, regardless of how well hidden from scientific scrutiny it might be. We therefore emphasise the sceptical default position of disbelief. I know some people disagree with this, and insist that "to believe in" something does not mean to believe that it exists. Therefore they are not likely to accept the argument, and indeed the dictionary definition that this is exactly what it means. In my own turn, this is also a major stumbling block, and one that I see as purely semantic. In other words, the argument is going nowhere, because there is no longer anything to argue about beyond the definitions of words like "god" and "claim".

Is that a fair assessment?

Yes.

I think you have the majority position against Claus. I think Bri and Beth are even suggesting that because you cannot disprove a god, that there is reason to believe... they seem to see peoples beliefs themselves as evidence for the existence of a god... I'm not sure of what NeilC is saying. I think you captured the majority position very well and compared it to Claus's position which you captured accurately as well. I'm not sure if Bri, Beth, egg, and NeilC would agree with Claus' position. I'm curious if Claus, er the former Mildred Koksmoker, will.

 

[Mobyseven]

Apologies if I have been unduly harsh to you, Bri. It was a frustrating thread before you arrived, and after a while I end up having rather a short fuse.

NOW...what if there is valid evidence both for and against a particular proposition P? In that case, both P and ~P (not P) are supported by evidence, are they not? It seems that it would be possible for both P and ~P to be skeptical according to your definition. Do you disagree?

Provided we are talking about an objective feature of the universe, and not anything subjective, then any claim for which there is both valid evidence for and against it is either a flawed claim (there is something wrong in the phrasing of the claim), or the evidence for one side is flawed.

Otherwise you are positing a universe in which it is possible for both p and ~p to be true, and that is not our universe.

 

[Egg]

Wrong. Very strong reasons. See occam. Never has the supernatural been an explanation for anything. It's always been a filler until humans figure out the actual facts.

Occam?
"No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by experience, or (c) by some infallible authority (the Bible, the Saints and certain pronouncements of the Church)"
I'm guessing you must mean some other Occam reference as this one doesn't do much for your argument.

Bad analogy. Real friends get their consciousness from their brains; they are material entities-- which are hooked up to sensory organs. If your friend dies, they are not still your friend. Gods tend not to be material-- that makes them very likely imaginary per occam.

I don't think I've posted an analogy which you haven't tried to do this to. I made this one so obvious that you wouldn't be able to and you still did. How could I possibly be trying to compare friends to demons in the way you suggest? The analogy was one of thought processes, not saying that friends are just like demons. Some does not mean all. Just because you see three ladies wearing pink hats, doesn't mean all hats are pink, it is just evidence that hats can be pink (and I know hats aren't the same as demons, before you point it out).

Fallacious reasoning again. Good and bad information gets passed on... just like AIDS gets passed on. Religion gets passed on like a chain letter-- believe without evidence and you are rewarded forever... but if you doubt or bite from the tree of knowledge you and all your descendants can be punished. Oh, and god likes it if you spawn a lot and get more believers for him. People believe the things they are told by the people they trust. People learn not question their god beliefs because "questioning god is arrogant". And people are told that life is hell without god--so they keep him around--because they fear the consequences of letting go.

Or the point in brief: "People sometimes believe things they have learned which might not be true." which is what I said. How do your personal issues with religion make my point (about the nature of this particular evidence that demons are all imaginary) fallacious?

Correct. But there is no reason to think that gurus, scriptures, faith, or feelings will ever teach us anything true or verifiable. They never have.

Interesting claim. I'm pretty skeptical of that one.

The thing about science and reality is that the evidence does accumulate--it's useful and a little begets a lot more... but, despite eons of belief, there is no evidence for god and lots of evidence that he's an illusion. THAT is evidence... just like Randi being able to perform the same feats as Uri Geller and no one winning the MDC is evidence that these things ARE woo. Like gods and demons and thetans.

It is evidence for the claim, but I certainly wouldn't call it conclusive. It may not be unreasonable for someone to believe at this point that demons are only imaginary, but it wouldn't be on objective proof.

Although you want that to be true... skeptics believe things based on evidence--the most likely explanation for the observed facts. They know you cannot disprove god anymore than you can disprove Zeus... but they also know the rules of evidence and logic tend to give the best understanding of reality... that's how science works... that's the way we understand stuff like the shape of our earth-- it's not stuff you have to believe to understand -- it's stuff that's true for everybody whether they believe or not. That's why their opinions tend to converge on atheism and the models of science--the denial of the supernatural. There is no loss in denying the supernatural. The evidence can always change a skeptics mind--but until then, the best approach is always not to believe anything about any invisible forms of consciousness until or unless the belief is substantiate. It's prudent to treat all such claims as imaginary. We never would have learned anything if we tried to find it out about reality through faith. Positing the supernatural as an explanation is a childish dead end which blunts further discovery.

I'm sure there are things we now take for granted that people in the past would have called "supernatural". For example, someone claiming that disease was spread by invisible creatures would have been dismissed by your position of skepticism. Then someone goes and invents a microscope and it turns out that the claim was true, and the creatures were just invisible to the human eye.

I would call the closed-minded approach "cynicism", which I would suggest is more likely to blunt further discovery than "skepticism" which to my understanding, without conclusive evidence, would be more "I don't know...", hopefully with a healthy dose of "what if...". For a skeptical and curious theist "Goddidit!" is not some excuse to leave it be, but more of a reason to find out exactly how it was done, as Einstein suggested, to understand more of the mind of God.

My opinion is that you are reasoning fallaciously as religious memes have taught you to do. I don't think most people really know why they believe what they do. But I also know that the smartest conclusion is that all gods are figments of the imagination. To posit that one or another invisible entity might be real--posits a very different world... and not one anyone could know about-- If I can't know if there is a god-- no one CAN. They can only believe.

So, you have your beliefs and I have mine. That would pretty much support what I said there.

Yes, but lets face it-- the smart people treat them as imaginary--figments of the imagination...

Wrong. I think we're absolutely on solid ground to assume that there are no demons no matter how many people believe or think they are possessed. We'd never have discovered schizophrenia if we thought mental aberrations were demon possession. Belief in the supernatural is always a false conclusion for understanding facts. The supernatural is never the correct explanation.

Assuming no demons and claiming no demons are two different things. I agree that without evidence to suggest otherwise, one should work with the assumption that demons are not part of the equation. However, I remain skeptical as to your claim that the supernatural is never the correct explanation.

Wrong--skeptics tend to hold increasingly firm on beliefs as the evidence (or lack of it) accumulates over time-- and they tend to agree on the one reality that is the same for everyone. And opinions are not facts. Beliefs about facts that defy all known facts is illogical. A skeptic that posits that the supernatural is real in not being a skeptic in regards to that claim.

A definition is a person who utilizes skepticism. Per your definition of the world all believers of anything could be called skeptics. Your definition of skeptic means anyone who believes they are. That is not my definition. Moreover-- opinions are not beliefs. Opinions are not about the reality that is the same for everyone--they are subjective. Everyone has "unproven" opinions... but not everyone is a skeptic. Not everyone allows the supernatural as an explanation--those who do--are not being skeptical in regards to that claim. Anyone holding a believe that someone can exist without being detectable in any measurable way is invoking faith to reach that conclusion. It can never be disproven, but that doesn't make the belief skeptical or logical. ("God's name is Sandy--you can't prove me wrong."-- that's how the theists are arguing...and that's why it's maddening trying to have a discussion with believers or supporters of woo belief.)

It sounds like your definition of skepticism includes dismissing unproven and unprovable claims if they don't fit in with current, objective understanding of how things work, whereas my understanding of skepticism has them remaining as unknowns unless proven either way.

 

[chris epic]

if people didn't cherry pick when and when not to be skeptic, I think skeptics would think themselves out of a flippin' imagination. However, we haven't, so we don't, so we all aren't. St Paul was a Christian AND a critical thinker. So, cliche as it is, words like "strong" and "weak" and "intermediate" sides of a 'whatever' (atheism, agnosticism, behaviorism, etc...) could also be attached to skepticism...I guess.

 

[Mobyseven]

Occam?
"No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved (a) by reason, or (b) by experience, or (c) by some infallible authority (the Bible, the Saints and certain pronouncements of the Church)"
I'm guessing you must mean some other Occam reference as this one doesn't do much for your argument.

Occam's razor is a heuristic tool attributed to William of Occam because of the frequency with which he used it. The most common phrasing of the razor is actually, "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

The version you quote is one of the versions attributed to Occam himself - he was a Christian theist, and used that wording specifically as an 'out' for the Church and for god. However, as there is no way to ascertain if an authority is infallible or not, that phrasing of the razor will forever remain a testament to the cognitive knots some people will ties themselves into to rationalise a belief in god.

It is not, however, what is meant when people nowadays refer to Occam's razor.

 

[articulett]

It sounds like your definition of skepticism includes dismissing unproven and unprovable claims if they don't fit in with current, objective understanding of how things work, whereas my understanding of skepticism has them remaining as unknowns unless proven either way.

http://skepdic.com/occam.html
My definition of skepticism involves never positing the supernatural as an explanation. You think the supernatural could be true. And yet, despite eons of belief there's no measurable evidence for any such things--no measurable evidence for psychic powers, gods, demons, past lives, or souls. I think it they were real--science would discover them like they discovered germs. By the way--germs are material things... we understand them. And not by gurus either--they attributed sickness to curses, demon possession, and angry gods.

If they'd have gone with their supernatural presumptions, they wouldn't have known the truth... they'd just keep inventing evidence to prop up their beliefs. Suppose someone though your visit brought a tornado to a town and so they killed you-- what do you think would happen to their belief if there were no more tornadoes? They'd presume that you really brought the tornado and that it was a good thing they killed you so there would be no more tragedies brought by you. And if there was another tornado, they would look for the next visitor that needed killing. They would be less likely to find out that "correlation does not equal causation" or the real cause of tornadoes because they would assume they DID know. That's confirmation bias based on belief. All woo beliefs utilize this type of "evidence". It makes people reason poorly. It's better to have no belief than a wrong belief.

And I've heard the "I'm skeptic of the skeptics" claim before. That's fine. But scientists and skeptics tend to be the best at furthering actual understanding of our world. The faithful never have as far as I can tell. They just spread confirmation biased notions to each other. Sure people can believe whatever they want. Most skeptics do not have supernatural beliefs because they understand that there is a high probability that all supernatural beliefs are based on misperceptions... they'd rather not know something than to believe a lie. There is no useful verifiable or objective knowledge that can be obtained via faith and feelings and belief in consciousness existing absent a material body. Our brain gives rise to our consciousness via genes and the interaction with a physical environment. We have no reason to even imagine it could be another way and positing such a notion is like asking "what if we are really in a matrix?" "What if I reincarnate as a stone in my next life?" It's mental gibberish... cultural flotsam... If you think that people believe crazy things because they might have some access to "magic" your forfeit the opportunity to learn why people believe as they do and the actual nature of perception.

But I'm played out in this conversation. I think most of us understand each other and most have concluded that the skeptical logical position is to assume that all beliefs in the supernatural are woo until anything supernatural has some verifiable measurable evidence going for it. It's all woo or safely treated as woo. Gods are as woo as demons are as woo as real psychic powers are as woo as homeopathy. It's all woo. There's not a logical reason to conclude that any such things are based on evidence and that all supposed evidence is inference based on known wrong inferences people make in fooling themselves. A belief in god is woo to me whether evidence is claimed or not.

I cannot imagine a former theist such as myself who logically thought their way to atheism being convinced back by any argument a theist makes. The few who go backwards are more default atheists-- unchurched people... but I have never heard a good argument or a logical reason for a nonbeliever becoming a believer or a skeptic becoming less skeptical--that is, more likely to accept the possibility that some supernatural something or other is making itself known to some corporeal being. I don't believe in magic. Not god magic or any other kind of magic. We don't live in a world of magic. I am glad that I understand most skeptics and that the people I feel are the smartest and clearest are the people I understand and who understand me. Skeptics CAN believe whatever they want and anyone can call themselves a skeptic-- but for obvious reasons most appear to be atheists and don't believe in any divine sources of any type.

 

[Bri]

I think Bri and Beth are even suggesting that because you cannot disprove a god, that there is reason to believe... they seem to see peoples beliefs themselves as evidence for the existence of a god...

I'm sorry, but that is not what I'm suggesting at all. There is little if any evidence that any god exists (that I know of). Some might claim to have evidence (I even conversed with one person on this forum who claimed that God spoke to him and seemed sane in every other way) but that evidence is easily dismissed by those who haven't had the experience first-hand.

On the other hand, there is also little if any evidence that no gods exist. I'm not certain what sort of evidence there could be against an unfalsifiable god.

So what is a skeptic to do? One can be completely agnostic about it, but is it even possible not to at least have an opinion on the matter? I can't think of any general rule that one could follow in order to determine the "correct" opinion to hold when the evidence isn't conclusive. Perhaps we could come up with some arbitrary rule about not believing the existence of beings without substantial objective evidence, but then there would be exceptions for beliefs about intelligent aliens for which there is also only speculation rather than any actual evidence.

There are many opinions that we all hold on a whole range of topics (some very important) despite a lack of conclusive evidence. Can we really devise an entirely objective method for determining which opinion we must hold on every matter in order to remain skeptical? Or worse, should we refrain from having any opinion about them at all?

Personally, I suspect that skepticism must not be about excluding specific opinions. Rather, skepticism is probably more about questioning our beliefs, understanding why we hold the beliefs we hold, having an understanding of the strength of the evidence for and against our beliefs, looking for evidence for and against our beliefs, and being willing to change our beliefs as evidence becomes available.

That sort of definition probably won't satisfy those who wish to exclude all theists from the club, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

I want to hear what the other side thinks of Big Les's summary of this thread. Do those who disagree with the majority agree with each other? understand each other? Do you agree with Claus that any belief can be in perfect concordance with skepticism so long as no evidence is claimed? Can all your beliefs and assumptions about the possibility of god belief also apply to demon belief per your definition of skepticism? And if so, what exactly do you use skepticism for? And if not--why not. Aren't all such claims or beliefs equally valid and likely? According to Claus' skeptic manifesto they are.

 

[Bri]

Apologies if I have been unduly harsh to you, Bri. It was a frustrating thread before you arrived, and after a while I end up having rather a short fuse.

Your apology is accepted, Mobyseven. Thanks.

Provided we are talking about an objective feature of the universe, and not anything subjective, then any claim for which there is both valid evidence for and against it is either a flawed claim (there is something wrong in the phrasing of the claim), or the evidence for one side is flawed.

Otherwise you are positing a universe in which it is possible for both p and ~p to be true, and that is not our universe.

Well, more likely our knowledge of the subject is incomplete. But unfortunately, that's often the way things are. There are often competing theories, both with valid (though obviously not conclusive) evidence behind them.

An example off the top of my head (though not a perfect one) is quantum theory. There is a lot of evidence for quantum theory, but many scientists believe that there are "hidden variables" and that determinism is correct after all. Both can't possibly be true, but there are compelling reasons to believe either one and there is plenty of evidence for both.

If there is valid evidence both for and against a particular proposition P (i.e. both P and ~P are supported by evidence) it seems that both P and ~P would be skeptical according to your definition (even though one of them is wrong).

-Bri