Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[CFLarsen]

I don't have you on ignore, but I'm going to ignore that post. I've stated my position. You are just repeating yours. There's nothing new in your post.

Yes, there is:

What evidence has Martin Gardner claimed was the reason for his Credo Consolans?

Just how do you define skepticism?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, there is:

What evidence has Martin Gardner claimed was the reason for his Credo Consolans?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with an individual's invalid evidence underlying their god beliefs which preceded their credo consolans reason for maintaining those beliefs. Nor do I give credence to the "claimed" reasons for one's beliefs anyway, as I have already noted. There is additional evidence in the science of human psychology besides an individual's personal conclusions as to why they believe what they believe.

Just how do you define skepticism?

See pages 1-40. It's in there somewhere, more than once.

 

[articulett]

My definition of skepticism-- the belief in only that which has been demonstrated to exist or have a strong probability of existing and the use of occams razor, critical thinking, the avoidance of logical fallacies, and the scientific method for understanding more of the truth that is the same for everybody-- the objective truth. The certainty of a skeptic should converge with other skeptics and increase in proportion to the evidence in regards to a particular preposition and the supernatural should not be appealed to as an answer for anything because it never has been demonstrated to exist. Skeptics don't have beliefs about things that are unlikely to exist. They may have opinions regarding the likelihood of something's existence... but they don't believe in that something's existence without evidence. They reject woo because no woo has proven true but lots of people are convinced that their woo is true.

That's my definition. I'm sticking to it. And I'm sticking to my claim that believers who call themselves skeptics are shielding their beliefs from their skepticism in order to keep their beliefs. I think all gods crumble when examined critically--no matter how nebulous and magical and out of bounds and not-subject-to-detection you make them. And things that are indistinguishable from human delusions-- can safely be treated as human delusions.

But that's just my opinion. Anyone is free to call themselves a Skeptic just as anyone is free to call themselves a Christian or an atheist or an agnostic or a Deist. And everyone is free to define the invisible things they believe in as having whatever traits and qualities and communication abilities as they imagine. And I am, in return, free to decide if I think the labels fit.

 

[fishkr]

Anyone is free to call themselves a Skeptic just as anyone is free to call themselves a Christian or an atheist or an agnostic or a Deist.

Am I free to call myself an Atheistic Christian Fundementalist Skeptic? I think Christ existed, but God doesn't, the Church got it fundementally wrong, especially the part about using condoms being a mortal sin, but I doubt any of this can be certainly known . . . . but in the absence of evidence, belief is unfounded. Is there an acronym for my un-belief system, perhaps?

If you flip the C, F, S you get "ASFuC". Does this work for anybody? If we included "secular" would that help?

 

[SirPhilip]

My definition of skepticism-- the belief in only that which has been demonstrated to exist or have a strong probability of existing and the use of occams razor, critical thinking, the avoidance of logical fallacies, and the scientific method for understanding more of the truth that is the same for everybody-- the objective truth. The certainty of a skeptic should converge with other skeptics and increase in proportion to the evidence in regards to a particular preposition and the supernatural should not be appealed to as an answer for anything because it never has been demonstrated to exist. Skeptics don't have beliefs about things that are unlikely to exist. They may have opinions regarding the likelihood of something's existence... but they don't believe in that something's existence without evidence. They reject woo because no woo has proven true but lots of people are convinced that their woo is true. That's my definition. I'm sticking to it. And I'm sticking to my claim that believers who call themselves skeptics are shielding their beliefs from their skepticism in order to keep their beliefs. I think all gods crumble when examined critically--no matter how nebulous and magical and out of bounds and not-subject-to-detection you make them. And things that are indistinguishable from human delusions-- can safely be treated as human delusions. But that's just my opinion. Anyone is free to call themselves a Skeptic just as anyone is free to call themselves a Christian or an atheist or an agnostic or a Deist. And everyone is free to define the invisible things they believe in as having whatever traits and qualities and communication abilities as they imagine. And I am, in return, free to decide if I think the labels fit.

Frustums of reason like these are understandable, although yours are tiresome, it isn't anything new either, read about 17'th and 18'th century Europe. You're also referring to classes of Jinn, they are invisible to humans but prevalent throughout history, culture and mythology; particularly artwork and ritual. They exist in a different medium and it isn't a common part of human experience at all to encounter them.

 

[Lonewulf]

Frustums of reason like these are understandable, although yours are tiresome, it isn't anything new either, read about 17'th and 18'th century Europe. You're also referring to classes of Jinn, they are invisible to humans but prevalent throughout history, culture and mythology; particularly artwork and ritual.

So are dragons. Would you honestly suggest that dragons actually exist, and if so, what evidence do you have?

They exist in a different medium and it isn't a common part of human experience at all to encounter them.

Sure.

And I have invisible elves in my back yard.

Prove me wrong.

 

[CFLarsen]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with an individual's invalid evidence underlying their god beliefs which preceded their credo consolans reason for maintaining those beliefs. Nor do I give credence to the "claimed" reasons for one's beliefs anyway, as I have already noted. There is additional evidence in the science of human psychology besides an individual's personal conclusions as to why they believe what they believe.

I didn't ask if you accepted his evidence as valid or invalid. I asked what evidence Martin Gardner claims is the reason for his Credo Consolans.

See pages 1-40. It's in there somewhere, more than once.

You can't even form a couple of sentences to explain how you define skepticism?

My definition of skepticism-- the belief in only that which has been demonstrated to exist or have a strong probability of existing and the use of occams razor, critical thinking, the avoidance of logical fallacies, and the scientific method for understanding more of the truth that is the same for everybody-- the objective truth. The certainty of a skeptic should converge with other skeptics and increase in proportion to the evidence in regards to a particular preposition and the supernatural should not be appealed to as an answer for anything because it never has been demonstrated to exist. Skeptics don't have beliefs about things that are unlikely to exist. They may have opinions regarding the likelihood of something's existence... but they don't believe in that something's existence without evidence. They reject woo because no woo has proven true but lots of people are convinced that their woo is true.

That's my definition. I'm sticking to it. And I'm sticking to my claim that believers who call themselves skeptics are shielding their beliefs from their skepticism in order to keep their beliefs. I think all gods crumble when examined critically--no matter how nebulous and magical and out of bounds and not-subject-to-detection you make them. And things that are indistinguishable from human delusions-- can safely be treated as human delusions.

Your definition suffers from at least one serious flaw.

It is not true that "no woo has proven true". Rocks did fall out of the sky.

You are presupposing that we have reached a point where we are able to tell today if anything - even in the future - is woo or not. You completely ignore the progress of science, and how science works: By fine-tuning, by recycling ideas, by coming up with new explanations, because new discoveries were found.

But that's just my opinion. Anyone is free to call themselves a Skeptic just as anyone is free to call themselves a Christian or an atheist or an agnostic or a Deist. And everyone is free to define the invisible things they believe in as having whatever traits and qualities and communication abilities as they imagine. And I am, in return, free to decide if I think the labels fit.

That's ridiculous. You have just nullified all meaning of all words. Which, of course, makes the "objective truth" you mentioned earlier impossible to agree on.

 

[amb]

With a couple of those, one can't be sure, their contemporaries were being persecuted for speaking out. With all of them except Einstein, you can't hold against them what we know now that they didn't know then. And with all of them, you also don't know if they ever addressed their childhood indoctrinations scientifically. Same is true today, a lot of scientists indoctrinated as kids have simply not put their beliefs up to the light for an examination.

So I don't get your point. Are you saying because all scientists have not let go of god, god beliefs are scientific? Or god beliefs are legit? Or god beliefs are compatible with skepticism?

All these distinguished gentle men died as agnostics at best or downright atheists. Here is a quote from one of the greatest minds in the last millinium. "' It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it'' ~~Albert Einstein~~ in his biography. That does not sound like a theist to me. And remember this; 90% of The American Acadamy Of Science members, are atheists or agnostic.

 

[Lonewulf]

And remember this; 90% of The American Acadamy Of Science members, are atheists or agnostic.

ambnp, where did you get this figure?

I think that Dawkins said something like this, but I'd like to know where the actual figure came from...

 

[articulett]

ambnp, where did you get this figure?

I think that Dawkins said something like this, but I'd like to know where the actual figure came from...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

The Poll: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002a.html

I bet it's higher now even. Neil Degrasse Tyson said he wonders why the figure isn't 100% in his Beyond Belief 2006 speech.

 

[CFLarsen]

yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

The Poll: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002a.html

That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

First, the numbers aren't for the all members of the National Academy of Sciences, but "leading"/"greater" scientists:

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).
Source

Second, the most recent numbers (1998) are:

Belief in personal God
Personal belief: 7.0%
Personal disbelief: 72.2%
Doubt or agnosticism: 20.8%

Doubting a personal god does not mean disbelief in a personal god.

Details and more numbers here.

 

[Beth]

That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

First, the numbers aren't for the all members of the National Academy of Sciences, but "leading"/"greater" scientists:



Second, the most recent numbers (1998) are:

Belief in personal God
Personal belief: 7.0%
Personal disbelief: 72.2%
Doubt or agnosticism: 20.8%

Doubting a personal god does not mean disbelief in a personal god.

Details and more numbers here.

A very interesting link. Thanks.

 

[Lonewulf]

The figures still tend to be devastating towards belief of god vs. science.

I just want to add that the majority of the U.S. are not deists. They do believe in a personal god.

 

[SirPhilip]

So are dragons. Would you honestly suggest that dragons actually exist, and if so, what evidence do you have?

It's simply a lower-level natural phenomena that leaves no trace of itself, but is richly depicted throughout human history and culture. You'll notice, academically if you study it, the themes repeat across cultures. Your family probably has affects relating to it in their home. Reconciling it with reason is not possible, it's a generally closed-off part of the human condition, however it's all around you, and we're saturated in a modern culture that is desperate for any validity of superstition.

Sure. And I have invisible elves in my back yard. Prove me wrong.

You can discover it, but you can't come here and declare "Dude, I just ran into some spectral Nymphs in my backyard. I'm kicking World of Warcraft and becoming highly ridiculous.." and expect to be constructive. You'll be in the same situation anyone has in history who has personally reconciled the basis of superstition.

In Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade the Third Reich want to use a religious artifact to bend nature's rules and set Hitler as a God, and Jones, who is part of the scientific community, wants to go down in history by documenting it and putting it in a museum. The Ark kills them, except Jones whose eyes are shut, and neither cross the temple's seal with the cup. Sylvia and others, and Randi and others like him, are like this. Sylvia (as well as Popoff) are desperate to become like a God, and Randi (along with parapsychologists and others) are desperate to document what validity this madness everyone considers sacred or important has. Sylvia has a library of nonsense, and Randi's Asimov Library is even more comprehensive, which I found charming to visit. Both try to pull the same sword from the stone, but it doesn't budge.

So you care to be the exception(al) and walk across the invisible bridge to the wild side?

 

[Lonewulf]

You were mentioning posts that merit nothing serious, Philip.

You have just made that post.

"It's spread throughout cultures, so therefore it must be true!" So funny.

 

[SirPhilip]

No. More like mocking. Which is no less than your posts, which are very difficult to understand, deserve.

More like bickering. As Articulett's common frustration with the subject exemplifies, it is not possible to resolve except through direct experience. Persuing that is how it is validated.

Very convincing.

An oddity at best, even to the academically interested.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

Why superstition is so culturally significant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

First, the numbers aren't for the all members of the National Academy of Sciences, but "leading"/"greater" scientists:



Second, the most recent numbers (1998) are:

Belief in personal God
Personal belief: 7.0%
Personal disbelief: 72.2%
Doubt or agnosticism: 20.8%

Doubting a personal god does not mean disbelief in a personal god.

Details and more numbers here.

Wow, "Gross misrepresentation", they only surveyed the top members. Maybe a skewed sample, maybe not, but even so it would be consistent with the statement the data supported, that the more you know in science, the less likely you are to believe in gods.

And it was 72% no belief and 21% at least doubt. I don't think you can call that a "gross misrepresentation". BTW, this data supports my post in the other thread that the more modern the society, the less theistic their beliefs (with some exceptions).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't ask if you accepted his evidence as valid or invalid. I asked what evidence Martin Gardner claims is the reason for his Credo Consolans.

My answer holds, your question wasn't relevant and therefore no answer was needed.

You can't even form a couple of sentences to explain how you define skepticism?....

 

[Lonewulf]

More like bickering. As Articulett's common frustration with the subject exemplifies, it is not possible to resolve except through direct experience.

I'd love for people to claim that about astronomy, cosmological theory, or penicillin.

Seems like "personal experience" is the only way to perceive something to the woo that you pursue.

An oddity at best, even to the academically interested.

Not true. There are logical, skeptical answers to that question.

Belief in demons is widespread throughout various cultures, right?

So is Sleep Paralysis. Or do you think that only certain cultures suffer from Sleep Paralysis? Sleep Paralysis has been explained by many different sorts of things; suffering from it back then, you'd assume that a nasty spirit was messing with you.

Another thing that's widespread throughout cultures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hallucination

Any questions?

 

[CFLarsen]

Wow, "Gross misrepresentation", they only surveyed the top members.

No, that's not correct. They surveyed 400 members of NAS.
Maybe a skewed sample, maybe not, but even so it would be consistent with the statement the data supported, that the more you know in science, the less likely you are to believe in gods.

It's not as clear-cut as that. While there is a clear correlation between very high education and lack of belief in god, mathematicians are almost three times as likely to believe in God than biologists.

It depends on the level of scientific training, but also what field you are in.

And it was 72% no belief and 21% at least doubt. I don't think you can call that a "gross misrepresentation". BTW, this data supports my post in the other thread that the more modern the society, the less theistic their beliefs (with some exceptions).

I think I can call articulett's claim "gross misrepresentation". Don't you?

My answer holds, your question wasn't relevant and therefore no answer was needed.

How can it not be relevant? Here we have the most famous deist skeptic, and you think it is irrelevant how he got to his credo consolans?

You can't just dismiss the examples that destroy your argument.

We'll never know, then.