Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which is a great little definition - what I've seen a lot of in this thread is people with a wide variety of beliefs wishing to add their beliefs to what it means to say "I'm a sceptic". So we see people wanting to attach their atheism/theism/deism/meism to the label "sceptic" and declaring all the rest non-true Scotsmen.

Moby said it already, but sheesh, Darat, the atheists posting in this thread have made it very clear many times over, our position is that theist beliefs can only be held if skepticism is not applied to those beliefs. Who is or isn't a skeptic is a separate matter.

If you genuinely question things and use the best tools available to you to form your conclusions and that's a reiterative process then you are "a" skeptic because you are being skeptical. That does not mean you have to be able to support every single one of your opinions and beliefs with evidence and rationality - my preferences in reading material are not "skeptical", my liking for my pets is not "skeptical" but on the whole I, and most people who know me, would say that I am a sceptical person.

There is a qualitative difference between one's likes and dislikes and one's god beliefs. I don't see anyone from JREF in heated debates that their preference for cats over dogs is or is not a skeptical position.

Personally I find it in the end to be futile exercise as I've never yet met anyone who can be can be defined by a simple label. ETA: And by the way that is what the JREF means by saying it is not an atheist organisation.

I would suggest the motive and meaning of JREF not being an atheist organization is more of a non-confrontational politically expedient fact. I would also add that ignoring the elephant in the room, (maintaining an exception for some god beliefs), is not consciously done, nor the result of a management or organizational decision, rather it is the result of current day circumstances. All skeptics have not yet figured out all god beliefs are baseless. But then that is my opinion and my observation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not particularly JREF. Look at what Shermer says:






Read both articles very carefully.

Do you understand why you are wrong?

The premise that there is such a thing as an untestable god is dependent on defining that god in a way which makes the existence of such a god entirely meaningless. You need to define god as some being that does not interact with the Universe or covers its tracks, hiding itself. If you think about it, such a definition is not consistent with the actual definition of a god.

 

[Mobyseven]

The premise that there is such a thing as an untestable god is dependent on defining that god in a way which makes the existence of such a god entirely meaningless. You need to define god as some being that does not interact with the Universe or covers its tracks, hiding itself. If you think about it, such a definition is not consistent with the actual definition of a god.

On top of that, and possibly more importantly, what does it even mean to say that such a being, whose existence is indistinguishable from its non-existence, 'exists'?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

A persecution complex would seem to include thinking a post in reply to someone else was really directed at you. Or did I miss something?

My thread.
dglas' post

I'd also semantically note that I referred to "my thread" not me.

 

[CFLarsen]

Cannot be answered without you setting your premises i.e. what you mean by "rational.

Well, dglas didn't say what the premises would be, but I assume that he means the usual skeptical approach.

Moby said it already, but sheesh, Darat, the atheists posting in this thread have made it very clear many times over, our position is that theist beliefs can only be held if skepticism is not applied to those beliefs. Who is or isn't a skeptic is a separate matter.

Your very first post in this thread made it clear that you don't think that non-Atheists can be skeptics:

Yes (to the OP question)

I know it is not the view of everyone, especially since it doesn't help convert the non-skeptics, but I see no rational way to put one set of god beliefs in a special category.

I would suggest the motive and meaning of JREF not being an atheist organization is more of a non-confrontational politically expedient fact. I would also add that ignoring the elephant in the room, (maintaining an exception for some god beliefs), is not consciously done, nor the result of a management or organizational decision, rather it is the result of current day circumstances. All skeptics have not yet figured out all god beliefs are baseless. But then that is my opinion and my observation.

You are wrong. Randi has made it clear that a lot of thinking has gone into this. It isn't just some casual statement thrown out to the public.

The premise that there is such a thing as an untestable god is dependent on defining that god in a way which makes the existence of such a god entirely meaningless. You need to define god as some being that does not interact with the Universe or covers its tracks, hiding itself. If you think about it, such a definition is not consistent with the actual definition of a god.

So Randi and Shermer are wrong?

 

[Darat]

Moby said it already, but sheesh, Darat, the atheists posting in this thread have made it very clear many times over, our position is that theist beliefs can only be held if skepticism is not applied to those beliefs. Who is or isn't a skeptic is a separate matter.

And?

There is a qualitative difference between one's likes and dislikes and one's god beliefs. I don't see anyone from JREF in heated debates that their preference for cats over dogs is or is not a skeptical position.

There may be for some definitions of "god beliefs" but not for all, as for not seeing dog v cat debates I would suggest you read many threads throughout the Forum where those exact type of discussions are happening all the time. Your comment here is a prime example of evidence support my claim: "So we see people wanting to attach their atheism/theism/deism/meism to the label "sceptic" and declaring all the rest non-true Scotsmen."

I would suggest the motive and meaning of JREF not being an atheist organization is more of a non-confrontational politically expedient fact.

...snip...

Suggest it all you like however it is not in line with the evidence.

I would also add that ignoring the elephant in the room, (maintaining an exception for some god beliefs), is not consciously done, nor the result of a management or organizational decision, rather it is the result of current day circumstances. All skeptics have not yet figured out all god beliefs are baseless. But then that is my opinion and my observation.

Again you provide evidence for people wanting to attach their "meism" to the label skeptic.

 

[Darat]

Well, dglas didn't say what the premises would be, but I assume that he means the usual skeptical approach.

...snip..

I did not ask you about the process of skepticism - I asked you what your starting premise is/are.

You asked:

Which political platform is the most rational?

That is a meaningless question unless you define what you mean by "rational" - rational in the sense of the question you asked is a value term - it means nothing on its own. If you don't understand my point perhaps you should replace the word with "logical" as it makes the lack of meaning more apparent:

Which political platform is the most logical?

As you can see to be able to answer that question you would have to state the starting premises for that question to be meaningful.

 

[CFLarsen]

I did not ask you about the process of skepticism - I asked you what your starting premise is/are.

You asked:

Which political platform is the most rational?

That is a meaningless question unless you define what you mean by "rational" - rational in the sense of the question you asked is a value term - it means nothing on its own. If you don't understand my point perhaps you should replace the word with "logical" as it makes the lack of meaning more apparent:

Which political platform is the most logical?

As you can see to be able to answer that question you would have to state the starting premises for that question to be meaningful.

It's not my starting premise, it's dglas'. If everything can be scrutinized skeptically, I want to know how we do that with politics.

 

[Henners]

It's not my starting premise, it's dglas'. If everything can be scrutinized skeptically, I want to know how we do that with politics.

I think it's reasonable to start with the assumption that they are a bunch of lying so-and-sos whose only purpose is to feather their own nests by jumping on the best available band-waggon, and the further up the greasy pole anyone is, the more people they have had to stamp on to get there.

But, hell, that's just an evidence-based viewpoint.

 

[Mobyseven]

And?

I think Skeptigirl misunderstood your position, as I think you have misunderstood hers.

It seems to me, as an observer of this thread, that the great majority of people who are arguing that theism is not a position that can be reached via skepticism (myself included) do not think that holding such a position necessarily precludes a person from being a skeptic - I see it as being either a blind spot, or a belief that is deliberately not analysed and evaluated skeptically (credo consolans could be an example of the latter). Also, there are very, very few people who still seem to think that by definition one cannot be a skeptic and a theist.

Certainly there are a few who argue for the two positions I have stated are unpopular, but they are far and away the minority, and (she'll correct me if I'm wrong) Skeptigirl is not a member of that particular minority.

 

[Darat]

It's not my starting premise, it's dglas'. If everything can be scrutinized skeptically, I want to know how we do that with politics.

You presented that question as if it could not be examined "skeptically" I have attempted to explain to you that the reason the question you asked can't be answered "skeptically" is that the question is meaningless without additional information.

 

[Darat]

I think Skeptigirl misunderstood your position, as I think you have misunderstood hers.

Certainly that's possible and if I've got the wrong end of the stick I'm sure she can correct me!

It seems to me, as an observer of this thread, that the great majority of people who are arguing that theism is not a position that can be reached via skepticism (myself included) do not think that holding such a position necessarily precludes a person from being a skeptic - I see it as being either a blind spot, or a belief that is deliberately not analysed and evaluated skeptically (credo consolans could be an example of the latter). Also, there are very, very few people who still seem to think that by definition one cannot be a skeptic and a theist.

...snip...

I mostly agree. However I do think it is entirely possible to arrive at a belief that a god (only certain definitions of course) exists via the process of scepticism. It can depend on the person's access to information and an ability to think critically, for example someone growing up in a closed Amish society probably has poor access to a wide range of unbiased information so could quite easily arrive at a "wrong" conclusion even if they have examined what they've been taught skeptically.

 

[CFLarsen]

You presented that question as if it could not be examined "skeptically" I have attempted to explain to you that the reason the question you asked can't be answered "skeptically" is that the question is meaningless without additional information.

I understand your point of "rational" being a value term - that's precisely my point: We can't skeptically evaluate politics the same way we can evaluate if Sylvia Browne talks to dead people. Whether you want a liberal or a conservative government is a value decision.

I just want to know how dglas is going to skeptically evaluate politics.

 

[Mobyseven]

I mostly agree. However I do think it is entirely possible to arrive at a belief that a god (only certain definitions of course) exists via the process of scepticism. It can depend on the person's access to information and an ability to think critically, for example someone growing up in a closed Amish society probably has poor access to a wide range of unbiased information so could quite easily arrive at a "wrong" conclusion even if they have examined what they've been taught skeptically.

Hmmm...interesting. I suppose it could be possible to arrive at the conclusion that god exists using skeptical methods, provided one has access to only limited or faulty information.

However, the minute that person enters into contact with a person who has more, correct, information, the person will have their beliefs challenged. Whether or not, in the light of this new information, the person changes their position or clings to the incorrect belief is just as important in skepticism as the way they formed their belief in the first place.

Anybody posting on this forum in particular has had their beliefs challenged, and time and time again in many threads it has been shown that theistic skeptics have not applied skepticism to their belief in god.

Still, an interesting point - given faulty information it may well be possible to use skepticism to conclude that god exists. The information on which the conclusion is based is still faulty though.

 

[dglas]

Stop misrepresenting the purpose behind my thread dglas. I thought only the Christers had a martyr complex.

Did I mention you at all in that post? I don't recall doing so. Perhaps I am mistaken? Nope. Didn't think so.

Not about you, as much as that may shock and astonish you. I am referring to the official JREF position that specifically mentions one group (atheists) and disassociates itself from it. Not talking about you at all. Sorry.

But, by all means, please don't restrain thy egotism on my account. I mean, if the best you have to counter with are ad hominems, I do enjoy seeing you make a fool of yourself by that method, however grandiosly you may believe yourself to be doing so.

Oh, wait. perhaps I am being hasty. What were your credentials for assessing someone's mental/emotional health again based on limited contact over an internet forum? Someone you have never met, someone you have not spoken with for any substantial amount of time.

If you wish to discuss a matter with me, stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. There, was that clear enough so that even YOU understand it?

 

[dglas]

Claus,

When Shermer determines for me what the definition of a skeptic is, shoot me please. I have read some of Shermer's stuff, in particular that ridiculous piece of nonsense quoted in every Skeptic magazine.

Shermer, like so many others, fails to understand (probably deliberately) the difference between doubt and denial, most likely lost in the true-false dichotomy (and that's being charitable). As a result, his ideas are really rather shallow and ill-considered.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Consider how it may be the case that not-true does not equal false.

My "intellectual cloud chamber" is doing just fine, thank you very much, because I do not equivocate doubt and denial. Infinite meta-levels of inquiry do not intimidate me, nor do they meaninglessly run around in circles (much like discussions with you do). Infinite meta-levels merely reinforce suspension of belief. Equivocating doubt and denial is a game True-Believers play. Shermer, in that he posits skepticism itself as being beyond the scope of skeptical inquiry, sets up a sacred cow and thereby attempts to create a self-affirming religion, which is the antithesis of skeptical inquiry. I don't put much stock in Shermer, I'm afraid. To me he looks just like another True-Believer. Quote him as an authoritah until you are blue in the face, if you wish. I question his rigour and honesty.

So, I guess, to answer your question, I do not see how I am wrong (in fact, I suspect I am not). Nice leading question though. Any more, I suppose, than you see why limiting the scope of skeptical inquiry is antithetical to skepticism qua method of inquiry. Skepticism is not a buffet - take what you like and leave the rest. Free inquiry that accepts limits is not free inquiry.

Those who advocate that skepticism should have limits on the scope of its inquiry are trying to eradicate its efficacy in its prime function in much the same way that the IDers tried to eradicate the primary function of science in the Dover trial - restipulation into meaninglessness.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

When Shermer determines for me what the definition of a skeptic is, shoot me please. I have read some of Shermer's stuff, in particular that ridiculous piece of nonsense quoted in every Skeptic magazine.

Shermer, like so many others, fails to understand (probably deliberately) the difference between doubt and denial, most likely lost in the true-false dichotomy (and that's being charitable). As a result, his ideas are really rather shallow and ill-considered.

O....kiedoke.

Why would Shermer deliberately fail to understand the difference between doubt and denial? His skepticism is simply a deliberate hoax? He is out to deceive us?

Can you name a couple of these other people?

Here's a thought experiment for you. Consider how it may be the case that not-true does not equal false.

Here's a question for you. In what logical system does not-true not equal false? False is not the opposite is true?

My "intellectual cloud chamber" is doing just fine, thank you very much, because I do not equivocate doubt and denial. Infinite meta-levels of inquiry do not intimidate me, nor do they meaninglessly run around in circles (much like discussions with you do). Infinite meta-levels merely reinforce suspension of belief. Equivocating doubt and denial is a game True-Believers play. Shermer, in that he posits skepticism itself as being beyond the scope of skeptical inquiry, sets up a sacred cow and thereby attempts to create a self-affirming religion, which is the antithesis of skeptical inquiry. I don't put much stock in Shermer, I'm afraid. To me he looks just like another True-Believer. Quote him as an authoritah until you are blue in the face, if you wish. I question his rigour and honesty.

So, I guess, to answer your question, I do not see how I am wrong (in fact, I suspect I am not). Nice leading question though. Any more, I suppose, than you see why limiting the scope of skeptical inquiry is antithetical to skepticism qua method of inquiry. Skepticism is not a buffet - take what you like and leave the rest. Free inquiry that accepts limits is not free inquiry.

Those who advocate that skepticism should have limits on the scope of its inquiry are trying to eradicate its efficacy in its prime function in much the same way that the IDers tried to eradicate the primary function of science in the Dover trial - restipulation into meaninglessness.

That doesn't answer the questions, though:

Which political platform is the most rational?

Which presidential candidate should Americans vote for, because (s)he is the most rational?

You have, yet again, made it clear that you don't think anything is outside the scope of skepticism. Apply your skepticism to politics, please.

 

[Darat]

I understand your point of "rational" being a value term - that's precisely my point: We can't skeptically evaluate politics the same way we can evaluate if Sylvia Browne talks to dead people. Whether you want a liberal or a conservative government is a value decision.

I just want to know how dglas is going to skeptically evaluate politics.

You can and indeed I would hold should use the exact same process to examine both claims. For example a political party's claim of "We'll improve the country's economy" is the same type of claim as "Dead people talk back to me".

 

[CFLarsen]

You can and indeed I would hold should use the exact same process to examine both claims. For example a political party's claim of "We'll improve the country's economy" is the same type of claim as "Dead people talk back to me".

Not quite. The difference is that the psychic is the sole factor, while a nation's economy is highly dependent on outside factors, outside the influence of a political party.

Are high taxes good or bad for a society? That depends entirely on what kind of society you want. Like you said, it's a value term.

 

[amb]

Claus,

When Shermer determines for me what the definition of a skeptic is, shoot me please. I have read some of Shermer's stuff, in particular that ridiculous piece of nonsense quoted in every Skeptic magazine.

Shermer, like so many others, fails to understand (probably deliberately) the difference between doubt and denial, most likely lost in the true-false dichotomy (and that's being charitable). As a result, his ideas are really rather shallow and ill-considered.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Consider how it may be the case that not-true does not equal false.

My "intellectual cloud chamber" is doing just fine, thank you very much, because I do not equivocate doubt and denial. Infinite meta-levels of inquiry do not intimidate me, nor do they meaninglessly run around in circles (much like discussions with you do). Infinite meta-levels merely reinforce suspension of belief. Equivocating doubt and denial is a game True-Believers play. Shermer, in that he posits skepticism itself as being beyond the scope of skeptical inquiry, sets up a sacred cow and thereby attempts to create a self-affirming religion, which is the antithesis of skeptical inquiry. I don't put much stock in Shermer, I'm afraid. To me he looks just like another True-Believer. Quote him as an authoritah until you are blue in the face, if you wish. I question his rigour and honesty.

So, I guess, to answer your question, I do not see how I am wrong (in fact, I suspect I am not). Nice leading question though. Any more, I suppose, than you see why limiting the scope of skeptical inquiry is antithetical to skepticism qua method of inquiry. Skepticism is not a buffet - take what you like and leave the rest. Free inquiry that accepts limits is not free inquiry.

Those who advocate that skepticism should have limits on the scope of its inquiry are trying to eradicate its efficacy in its prime function in much the same way that the IDers tried to eradicate the primary function of science in the Dover trial - restipulation into meaninglessness.

I assume you know Shermer is agnostic. Not that's importent to the discussion.