The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Piggy]

Ok, aside from the recent unpleasantness....

I think everyone's agreed that JREF is not an atheist organization in the sense that, say, The United Way is a charitable organization.

So w/ reference to the OP, no, it's shouldn't be part of the mission.

But I think we also agree that agnostics and atheists make up the majority of the membership.

And I believe remirol's point is that we should be careful about allowing that fact to lull us into a mindset of considering it a non-theist (to lump atheists and agnostics together) organization by default, in the same way that many Christians are quick to identify the USA as a "Christian nation" to the great irritation of many non-Christians.

But of course, the USA is in fact a Christian nation in terms of demographics and culture, and there's the rub.

But there's something more here because, of course, non-Christians, as well as thoughtful Christians, can point to the Constitution and find language expressly prohibiting a state religion. So there's nothing about being American which should inevitably lead one to be a Christian.

But what's simmering under the surface at JREF, and I believe in the wider skeptical community (loose as it may be), is a sporadic debate over the issue of whether skepticism / critical thinking, when followed to its logical end, actually does lead one to be an agnostic or atheist.

And that's why I engaged remirol's assertions regarding the (un-)disprovability of God. Because if it's true that God cannot be disproven, but might someday be proven, then agnosticism and perhaps some forms of theism are compatible with skepticism / critical thinking.

On the other hand, if it's true that God cannot ever be proven or disproven, then skepticism / critical thinking must lead inevitably to agnosticism.

I hold that skepticism /critical thinking, when followed through rigorously, actually does lead to atheism, but I'm in the minority and I don't want to go thru all that again -- I've spent many pages on other threads on that topic.

But really, it's your thinking on that question, it seems to me, which determines how you think about any skeptical organization and its relation to theism.

And remirol is absolutely right that confrontation can be counterproductive to JREF's mission.

However, we cannot expect members/posters who agree that theism is incompatible with skepticism to camouflage their position on that matter.

It's a genuine issue, and one I'm not sure has a solution.

 

[Prometheus]

Ok, aside from the recent unpleasantness....

I think everyone's agreed that JREF is not an atheist organization in the sense that, say, The United Way is a charitable organization.

So w/ reference to the OP, no, it's shouldn't be part of the mission.

But I think we also agree that agnostics and atheists make up the majority of the membership.

And I believe remirol's point is that we should be careful about allowing that fact to lull us into a mindset of considering it a non-theist (to lump atheists and agnostics together) organization by default, in the same way that many Christians are quick to identify the USA as a "Christian nation" to the great irritation of many non-Christians.

But of course, the USA is in fact a Christian nation in terms of demographics and culture, and there's the rub.

But there's something more here because, of course, non-Christians, as well as thoughtful Christians, can point to the Constitution and find language expressly prohibiting a state religion. So there's nothing about being American which should inevitably lead one to be a Christian.

But what's simmering under the surface at JREF, and I believe in the wider skeptical community (loose as it may be), is a sporadic debate over the issue of whether skepticism / critical thinking, when followed to its logical end, actually does lead one to be an agnostic or atheist.

And that's why I engaged remirol's assertions regarding the (un-)disprovability of God. Because if it's true that God cannot be disproven, but might someday be proven, then agnosticism and perhaps some forms of theism are compatible with skepticism / critical thinking.

Doesn't this usually just boil down to a debate over which definition of skepticism one adopts?

On the other hand, if it's true that God cannot ever be proven or disproven, then skepticism / critical thinking must lead inevitably to agnosticism.

Isn't this a tautology?

I hold that skepticism /critical thinking, when followed through rigorously, actually does lead to atheism, but I'm in the minority and I don't want to go thru all that again -- I've spent many pages on other threads on that topic.

But really, it's your thinking on that question, it seems to me, which determines how you think about any skeptical organization and its relation to theism.

Sure, but two things: 1) There's a No True Scotsman fallacy lurking here if we're not careful, and; 2) I don't think there's any imperative that skepticism/critical thinking must be followed through rigorously in all areas. In fact, it's arguable whether that's even possible, and when it comes down to the less offensive sorts of theistic beliefs such as Deism, why bother?

And remirol is absolutely right that confrontation can be counterproductive to JREF's mission.

However, we cannot expect members/posters who agree that theism is incompatible with skepticism to camouflage their position on that matter.

It's a genuine issue, and one I'm not sure has a solution.

For me, where this issue really get's thorny is when it comes down to advocating or avoiding confrontation with certain 'true believers' (such as my wife ).

Certainly there are cases where confrontation is called for, as in cases of parents attempting to treat seriously ill children with nothing but prayer. OTOH, there are people like my wife who, though she doesn't apply critical thinking to her own interpretation of her religion, has no trouble calling a fanatical religious nut job exactly that, and also manages to maintain a pretty strong and healthy skepticism in nearly all other areas of her life.

 

[dglas]

Indeed. But I am referring here to the artificial significance you keep attempting to force into the issue in your previous posts via semantic twaddle.

Wrong. But you should report all posts in which you feel I am doing so.

That is because your argument is based on nothing but the intentional misuse of words in an attempt to create significance where none previously existed. Hope this helps.

Again, semantics are how we understand things. You use of this catch-phrase, as popular as it is, is only an indication of your eagerness to avoid considering the issue in favour of dismissing the matter out of hand.

I am not a bait and report troll of the sort so favoured by the mods and admins here. I am not among the favoured, nor would I want to be.

"Nothing but the intentional misuse of words" does not exhibit an understanding of the subject matter at all and does not address the subject matter, even if you think that closes the book. It only exhibits a reflexive dismissal and points not at the subject matter, but at the intentions of the writer. I look forward to hearing anything you have to contribute on the subject of the subject matter.

Until then, the issue remains unaddressed.

 

[dglas]

Actually, Piggy. I agree with you that skepticism leads to atheism. Religions are affirmation-based philosophies. A non-affirmation-based philosophy must assume something may not be the case until and unless some evidence indicates otherwise. Non-affirmation is not denial in the sense the religious would have us believe. Unfortunately, affirmation-based philosophies try to impose a dichotomous relationship that is not necessarily the case. In a sense we are forced to atheism because of the definitions of the terms imposed upon us by the holders of affirmation-based philosophies. In their minds, anything other than affirmation is denial.

But this is beyond the scope of this discussion.

 

[remirol]

Again, semantics are how we understand things. You use of this catch-phrase, as popular as it is, is only an indication of your eagerness to avoid considering the issue in favour of dismissing the matter out of hand.

Mind-read much? In any case, you're wrong. I say this because I believe you're spending a great deal of time intentionally overfocusing on the words, and none focusing on the actual issue; ie. "should the JREF be explicitly atheist or not?". Worrying about what the JREF has said in the past on the subject, and the precise wording of how they said it, is just silly.

I am not a bait and report troll of the sort so favoured by the mods and admins here. I am not among the favoured, nor would I want to be.

Your personal issues aside, again, if you think I'm addressing the arguer and not the argument, please use the 'report' button; if not, please don't waste both our time by claiming it. Thanks!

"Nothing but the intentional misuse of words" does not exhibit an understanding of the subject matter at all and does not address the subject matter, even if you think that closes the book.

It closes the book on that particular argument. If you'd care to address the actual subject matter, rather than attempt a very weak reductio ad absurdum based on the JREF's phrasing when responding to a question, then perhaps there's something to say. But until then, yes, that book is not just closed, but the pages are stuck together.

Until then, the issue remains unaddressed.

Just because you didn't like the answer you got doesn't mean you didn't get an answer. I'm done responding to copy-and-paste spam now, thanks.

 

[Piggy]

Doesn't this usually just boil down to a debate over which definition of skepticism one adopts?

In my experience, no. More often, it comes down to a combination of assumptions brought to the table (e.g., "we can't know anything for sure") and how one pursues the chain of logic.

Isn't this a tautology?

Uh, yeah. It's supposed to be. All 3 options are.

Sure, but two things: 1) There's a No True Scotsman fallacy lurking here if we're not careful, and; 2) I don't think there's any imperative that skepticism/critical thinking must be followed through rigorously in all areas. In fact, it's arguable whether that's even possible, and when it comes down to the less offensive sorts of theistic beliefs such as Deism, why bother?

1. Lurking where?

2. Everyone takes a skeptical approach to something or other, and no one need apply critical thinking to, say, their preference for Eastwood's westerns over his cop films. But since JREF is an organization which is explicitly founded on skeptical principles, then it behooves us to approach this particular question with a skeptical eye.

For me, where this issue really get's thorny is when it comes down to advocating or avoiding confrontation with certain 'true believers' (such as my wife ).

Certainly there are cases where confrontation is called for, as in cases of parents attempting to treat seriously ill children with nothing but prayer. OTOH, there are people like my wife who, though she doesn't apply critical thinking to her own interpretation of her religion, has no trouble calling a fanatical religious nut job exactly that, and also manages to maintain a pretty strong and healthy skepticism in nearly all other areas of her life.

Well, sure. I think that's a common and practical approach.

On the other hand, if someone really wants to discuss religion with a skeptic / critical thinker, &/o posts a religious question on a skeptics' forum, well, they should expect to get skeptical responses.

 

[Piggy]

I'm done responding to copy-and-paste spam now, thanks.

<Thanks Jesus>

 

[Prometheus]

In my experience, no. More often, it comes down to a combination of assumptions brought to the table (e.g., "we can't know anything for sure") and how one pursues the chain of logic.

Yes, but which set of assumptions one adheres to is equivalent to which definition of skepticism one advances, isn't it? For instance, "We can't know anything for sure" is interpreted quite differently by a philosophical skeptic versus an empiricist.

Uh, yeah. It's supposed to be. All 3 options are.

Perhaps I missed something in your argument then. I'm not sure I understand your point here.
Gotta run; I'll address the latter half later on.

 

[Prometheus]

1. Lurking where?

Can we only identify someone as a skeptic if they apply skepticism to religious belief? I agree that applying skeptical principles to religion entails agnosticism/atheism. But I don't see anything wrong with being an empiricist who applies skeptical principles to the natural world, and leaves religion alone.

2. Everyone takes a skeptical approach to something or other, and no one need apply critical thinking to, say, their preference for Eastwood's westerns over his cop films. But since JREF is an organization which is explicitly founded on skeptical principles, then it behooves us to approach this particular question with a skeptical eye.

How does being founded on skeptical principles require that those principle be applied to religion, or any other specific area for that matter? Can't it be enough to say that the goal is to encourage more skepticism wherever people choose to apply it?

Well, sure. I think that's a common and practical approach.

On the other hand, if someone really wants to discuss religion with a skeptic / critical thinker, &/o posts a religious question on a skeptics' forum, well, they should expect to get skeptical responses.

I agree. And I don't really see anything wrong with skeptics being quite passionate about the issue either--especially in a forum like this. But that's still a separate issue from the identity of the organization itself.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But what's simmering under the surface at JREF, and I believe in the wider skeptical community (loose as it may be), is a sporadic debate over the issue of whether skepticism / critical thinking, when followed to its logical end, actually does lead one to be an agnostic or atheist.

And that's why I engaged remirol's assertions regarding the (un-)disprovability of God. Because if it's true that God cannot be disproven, but might someday be proven, then agnosticism and perhaps some forms of theism are compatible with skepticism / critical thinking.

On the other hand, if it's true that God cannot ever be proven or disproven, then skepticism / critical thinking must lead inevitably to agnosticism.

True, if critical thinking becomes the single most important facet of one's life. My previous comment on tool or tribal tatoo remains. (Darat's point on quality of the tatt stands as well. )

I hold that skepticism /critical thinking, when followed through rigorously, actually does lead to atheism, but I'm in the minority and I don't want to go thru all that again -- I've spent many pages on other threads on that topic.

Yes, often with great eloquence.

Overall, another "well said" from me to you.

DR

 

[Piggy]

Yes, but which set of assumptions one adheres to is equivalent to which definition of skepticism one advances, isn't it? For instance, "We can't know anything for sure" is interpreted quite differently by a philosophical skeptic versus an empiricist.

Maybe. I chalk that up to other assumptions, tho. It's like me and Athon... we both agree on what the skeptical method is, but we disagree on other issues that make us butt heads sometimes.

From my POV, "We can't know anything for sure" isn't an assumption about skeptical methods.

Perhaps I missed something in your argument then. I'm not sure I understand your point here.

All 3 of the options are tautologies. If A then X, if B then Y, if C then Z, perforce.

Seems to me that's where a lot of skeptics clash on the issue. Skeptics who accept A, B, and C are going to necessarily come to different conclusions about whether skepticism leads you to agnosticism, atheism, or neither -- even though they're all following the skeptical method.

 

[Piggy]

Can we only identify someone as a skeptic if they apply skepticism to religious belief? I agree that applying skeptical principles to religion entails agnosticism/atheism. But I don't see anything wrong with being an empiricist who applies skeptical principles to the natural world, and leaves religion alone.

No, it's too important.

I mean, you could apply critical thinking to the issue of why you like Eastwood's westerns more than his cop films. But that's trivial.

The question of whether the universe is entirely material or under the control of a supernatural being, however, is about as nontrivial as you can get.

I don't see how you can call yourself (or expect to be called by anyone else) a skeptic if you refuse to be skeptical about an issue which, when you think about it, pretty much subsumes every other issue you can think of.

 

[Piggy]

How does being founded on skeptical principles require that those principle be applied to religion, or any other specific area for that matter? Can't it be enough to say that the goal is to encourage more skepticism wherever people choose to apply it?

As far as the goal of JREF, I'd agree with you there.

I was referring to a different sense of the question: Is JREF, or any other ostensibly skeptical organization, an "atheist" organization?

If you think skepticism has to lead eventually to the conclusion that there is no God, then you have to conclude that, intellectually, it's bound to be, even if that's not part of the mission.

 

[Piggy]

True, if critical thinking becomes the single most important facet of one's life. My previous comment on tool or tribal tatoo remains. (Darat's point on quality of the tatt stands as well. )

Well, it's the most important facet of my life. I don't know of any other way to negotiate the world around me.

 

[Piggy]

Overall, another "well said" from me to you.

Thank you. I enjoy your posts as well.

 

[Prometheus]

No, it's too important.

I mean, you could apply critical thinking to the issue of why you like Eastwood's westerns more than his cop films. But that's trivial.

The question of whether the universe is entirely material or under the control of a supernatural being, however, is about as nontrivial as you can get.

I don't see how you can call yourself (or expect to be called by anyone else) a skeptic if you refuse to be skeptical about an issue which, when you think about it, pretty much subsumes every other issue you can think of.

The way I look at it, this question is about as trivial as you can get. If such a being is, in fact, supernatural, then there can never be any evidence either for or against its existence, since any measurable effect it might have on the natural world would render the being itself natural.

I'm more concerned with motivating change in people's behavior than their beliefs. Certainly there's some overlap, but people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo. If I can get someone to become a better person, I don't really care whether they drop their religious baggage or keep dragging it around with them.

 

[Piggy]

The way I look at it, this question is about as trivial as you can get. If such a being is, in fact, supernatural, then there can never be any evidence either for or against its existence, since any measurable effect it might have on the natural world would render the being itself natural.

I'm more concerned with motivating change in people's behavior than their beliefs. Certainly there's some overlap, but people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo. If I can get someone to become a better person, I don't really care whether they drop their religious baggage or keep dragging it around with them.

From my POV, it's fundamental. It changes your outlook on everything -- what the universe is, what we are, the meaning of life, you name it.

 

[six7s]

...people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo.

From my POV, it's fundamental. It changes your outlook on everything -- what the universe is, what we are, the meaning of life, you name it.

I think that the term 'fundamental' is key... sure, as Prometheus said, "people can and do change their behaviors all the time without letting go of cherished religious beliefs and other woo"... however, 'superficial' behaviour modification is, ultimately, relatively worthless in comparison with the sort of change that follows a 'joining of all the dots' to see the 'bigger picture'

 

[RevDisturba]

The bigger picture is God. Core beliefs are God. Superficial beliefs are partial truths like the emerging discoveries of science. Science exists to discover the full truth which is God.

Your welkie.

; }>

 

[six7s]

The bigger picture is God.

On the Disney Channel... maybe

Meanwhile, back in the real world... NO gods have ever been seen or heard