The JREF is not an atheist organization

[UnrepentantSinner]

Is this a correct statement and should it have any effect on our approach to the public face of organized skepticism? If it is not a correct statement, should the JREF change its mission statement to reflect this fact.

 

[Wowbagger]

I know quite a few JREFers who are not athiests. So, I imagine the statement is correct.

 

[prewitt81]

Here's Randi's take on the matter: http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I know quite a few JREFers who are not athiests. So, I imagine the statement is correct.

I was talking more about the JREF than the Forum. My being an atheist on Christianforums doesn't have any effect on the mission of that organization.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Here's Randi's take on the matter: http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html#14

I was at TAM3 and witness to some of the events that eventually elicited this statement. Two years have passed though, and it seems that skeptic has been redfined to include only strong (and militant) atheists.

 

[tsg]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I was at TAM3 and witness to some of the events that eventually elicited this statement. Two years have passed though, and it seems that skeptic has been redfined to include only strong (and militant) atheists.

No. Just because there is a debate among skeptics on the matter doesn't mean a Catholic can't be a skeptic. I'd say they're clearly not skeptical about Catholicism, but that's a separate matter. Skepticism is not an all-or-nothing definition.

 

[prewitt81]

No. Just because there is a debate among skeptics on the matter doesn't mean a Catholic can't be a skeptic. I'd say they're clearly not skeptical about Catholicism, but that's a separate matter. Skepticism is not an all-or-nothing definition.

Agreed. We've made a label out of an action.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Excellent and highly appropriate quip prewitt. I like it.

No. Just because there is a debate among skeptics on the matter doesn't mean a Catholic can't be a skeptic. I'd say they're clearly not skeptical about Catholicism, but that's a separate matter. Skepticism is not an all-or-nothing definition.

That's what I've been thinking all along, but apparently I'm crazy for thinking that.

 

[prewitt81]

That's what I've been thinking all along, but apparently I'm crazy for thinking that.

Not at all. I cringe every time I hear "I thought you were a skeptic" or something similar. If the JREF or the Skeptics' Society, P&T, or whoever causes someone to become skeptical about everything but religion, there is still more skepticism in the world than there was before.

I would even teach them our secret handshake.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Not at all. I cringe every time I hear "I thought you were a skeptic" or something similar. If the JREF or the Skeptics' Society, P&T, or whoever causes someone to become skeptical about everything but religion, there is still more skepticism in the world than there was before.

I would even teach them our secret handshake.

Yep, for folks who like to cry foul at the Scotsman Fallacy, some of us who proclaim our skeptitude sure seem guilty of it often enough.

I'd love to see people apply their skepticism toward areas of faith...but frankly I'm happy they are applying critical thinking in the areas they are ready and willing to.

 

[Caius Textor]

There is a subtle difference, that to me isn´t a difference at all:

There is the "political" label of "atheist": You take up that flag as something radically important to your organization. Randi says that the JREF does NOT hold that flag, meaning it does not have an atheist agenda and it does not shun religious people for being religious.

There is the PRAGMATICAL position: Randi says that the JREF stands critical and doubtful of religion as an account of reality. That means that the JREF doesn´t support, encourage nor otherwise promotes or discusses religion in itself. He is very clear when he says that religious statements do not have a privileged treatment and they are seen with skepticism.

It could, of course, simply take the "suspension of judgement" position. Simply refuse to debate any sort of statement of a religious nature. Not the case.

The JREF is pragmatically atheist (weak atheist, agnostic, let us not move to this discussion again). Religion is about accepting and believing, the JREF is about proving and doubting. So there you have it.

On a side note: I´m a moral person and I always act rightly, except when I go to a department store. There I like to shoplift because I just love clothes.
You can´t choose to be skeptic regarding certain things and simply NOT skeptic regarding some other arbitrary stuff. Doesn´t make any sense.

 

[timhau]

On a side note: I´m a moral person and I always act rightly, except when I go to a department store. There I like to shoplift because I just love clothes.
You can´t choose to be skeptic regarding certain things and simply NOT skeptic regarding some other arbitrary stuff. Doesn´t make any sense.

I don't know. It's like saying that the only way to go is "I'm a skeptic, and therefore I believe that P". I prefer "I believe that P, and therefore I'm a skeptic", i.e. take the label because it fits your thinking (better than others), but don't let the label define your thinking.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The JREF is pragmatically atheist (weak atheist, agnostic, let us not move to this discussion again).

This isn't a disagreement, but there's a more accurate way of expressing that - pragamtically emprically agnostic.

 

[Wowbagger]

I was talking more about the JREF than the Forum.

So was I.

 

[Caius Textor]

My whole point here is that any "label" is unimportant. What matters is what you actually do. If you pick topics to be skeptical about you´re just using it at your convenience and not as a thinking tool used to reach rational conclusions.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

My whole point here is that any "label" is unimportant. What matters is what you actually do. If you pick topics to be skeptical about you´re just using it at your convenience and not as a thinking tool used to reach rational conclusions.

How do you determine whether someone who is religious has skeptically considered their beliefs or not? Or are you suggesting they have not unless they are atheist... which leads back to the OP.

 

[boloboffin]

Skepticism isn't about atheism any more than it is about contrarianism, although I'm sure we have plenty of those around as well.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

I have a hard time understanding how a skeptic can be religious. It seems to me, that the belief in god and the belief in skepticism are opposed to each other? I would have thought being Atheist was a more natural partner to skepticism.

 

[Darat]

OK lets look at this skeptically. What is the evidence that the JREF is an "atheist organisation"?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I have a hard time understanding how a skeptic can be religious. It seems to me, that the belief in god and the belief in skepticism are opposed to each other? I would have thought being Atheist was a more natural partner to skepticism.

I think you might have it backwards. Atheists tend to be more skeptical and more likely to self-identify as a skeptic or join skeptics organizations.

OK lets look at this skeptically. What is the evidence that the JREF is an "atheist organisation"?

I'm taking to negative position that it is not, so what I'm looking for is people who think, since you can only be a True SkepticTM, that the JREF needs to change its mission statement. We can't have a bunch of crazies and child abusers claiming the appellation skeptic now can we?

 

[MortFurd]

I have a hard time understanding how a skeptic can be religious. It seems to me, that the belief in god and the belief in skepticism are opposed to each other? I would have thought being Atheist was a more natural partner to skepticism.

Skepticism is a thought process. You apply it to things as you think about them, and you work out your conclusions.

I don't see why a religious person should have to first apply skepticism to his religion. Actually, I can see where religion is the last place a believer would apply skepticism.

As you apply skepticism more and more to the things you do, you will get better at accepting the conclusions that critical thought bring you to.

Dumping a religious belief is going to be difficult for most people. They've built a life around their beliefs to the extent that no part of their lives aren't touched by religion. Dumping that is a major change, and one that most people will have to work up to.

I would expect a religious skeptic would not dump religion until 1) he's practiced critical thinking enough to be sure of his reasoning ability and 2) he's ready to deal with a major upset in his way of life.

Skeptical and religious? Yes, because you can't change everything all at once. Be glad the believer is thinking critically at all.

 

[CFLarsen]

Skepticism is a thought process. You apply it to things as you think about them, and you work out your conclusions.

I don't see why a religious person should have to first apply skepticism to his religion. Actually, I can see where religion is the last place a believer would apply skepticism.

Why?

If people apply skepticism to things as they think about them, a religious person should apply skepticism to his religion as the very first thing.

 

[Darat]

Why?

If people apply skepticism to things as they think about them, a religious person should apply skepticism to his religion as the very first thing.

Why?

 

[Beady]

The JREF is pragmatically atheist (weak atheist, agnostic, let us not move to this discussion again). Religion is about accepting and believing, the JREF is about proving and doubting. So there you have it.

You're wrong. JREF is not any kind of atheist organization, nor is skepticism about proving and doubting. Skepticism is about examining, and examining implies neither doubt nor proof. Neither does skepticism assume no deity, it only asserts that no human interpretation of a deity has yet sufficed to explain the universe as we now know it; there is a vast difference between a deity and an interpretation of a deity.

 

[tkingdoll]

Heh, if there was a word for 'not believing in the paranormal' or 'not believing in psychic powers', and the JREF said it wasn't that, this thread would be very different.

Irrational beliefs aren't worthy of respect, neither do they command special status (although some folk believe otherwise). With that in mind, I feel comfortable saying I see no difference between an uncritical and unappraised belief in a sky daddy and Sylvia Browne's spirit guide.

 

[prewitt81]

I see a distinct difference in a religious belief like "Jesus makes lost arms regrow", which is easily testable, and an untestable belief like "Jesus wants us to love one another."

Where a religion makes testable claims, skepticism can be applied. I'm not saying religion deserves special treatment, I'm saying it shouldn't be singled out more than anything else. Skepticism tests testable claims. If a religion isn't making such claims, there's not much to be skeptical about.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I see a distinct difference in a religious belief like "Jesus makes lost arms regrow", which is easily testable, and an untestable belief like "Jesus wants us to love one another."

Where a religion makes testable claims, skepticism can be applied. I'm not saying religion deserves special treatment, I'm saying it shouldn't be singled out more than anything else. Skepticism tests testable claims. If a religion isn't making such claims, there's not much to be skeptical about.

Agreed. Our local group came to that conclusion long ago. We had members who ranged from strong atheists to agnostics to religiously observant people.We did investigate claims such as the "weeping icon" in a church in Astoria NY, however, because they were making a testable claim. http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping25.htm

 

[Caius Textor]

How do you determine whether someone who is religious has skeptically considered their beliefs or not? Or are you suggesting they have not unless they are atheist... which leads back to the OP.

Unless you´re willing to accept Patristic and Scholastic "philosophical" justifications for faith, there is no rational way that will lead you to blind belief, much less one which has no ground in material reality.

You're wrong. JREF is not any kind of atheist organization, nor is skepticism about proving and doubting. Skepticism is about examining, and examining implies neither doubt nor proof.

Skepticism is about examining statements that cannot, or should not, be taken at face value and should be CHECKED to see if they´re reasonable. Hence, obviously, doubting.
The very origin of the term in philosophy is that of a questioning and doubting position regarding knowledge.

Examining a statement about the real world requires that statement to be judged against FACTS and DATA. The Million Dollar Chalenge is ALL ABOUT THIS: you have a claim (statement about the real world) and you have to DEMONSTRATE the veracity of such claim (show that it is the case.) I call that prooving, maybe you have some other name.

 

[Caius Textor]

Where a religion makes testable claims, skepticism can be applied. I'm not saying religion deserves special treatment, I'm saying it shouldn't be singled out more than anything else. Skepticism tests testable claims. If a religion isn't making such claims, there's not much to be skeptical about.

Religions are always making claims about the real world*, that´s its nature. That most of these claims are untestable by (their) construction doesn´t mean we can´t be skeptical about them! Quite the opposite, we MUST have a rational position regarding those claims! It´s the opposite of single-ing(??) it out; anything doing the same has the same treatment. That is my whole point here.

* With this I mean that a religion will always have claims that are not about an oblivious extra-natural world. Examples:

- There are "energy fields" in your body and they cause deseases when they are "unbalanced".
- Your life is guided by the motion of stars in such and such a way.
- There is a demon in your body and it should be expelled.
- This earthquake happened because we didn´t sacrifice our annual quota of oxen and virgin maidens.
- Because I don´t understand how the world works, it follows that an all-powerfull entity exists in the real world and changes it at will at all times.

 

[Wowbagger]

I see a distinct difference in a religious belief like "Jesus makes lost arms regrow", which is easily testable, and an untestable belief like "Jesus wants us to love one another."

Where a religion makes testable claims, skepticism can be applied. I'm not saying religion deserves special treatment, I'm saying it shouldn't be singled out more than anything else. Skepticism tests testable claims. If a religion isn't making such claims, there's not much to be skeptical about.

Ditto!
I was actually preparing a post that pretty much said this same thing (with different wording), but I think I'll just skip it, and declare "Yeah, what prewitt81 said!!"

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Why?

Why wouldn't it?

Isn't that the main crux of religion, god? Isn't the main crux of skepticism proof? How can the two opposites co-exist.

I honestly cannot see how a skeptic, who is religious is or can be a true skeptic. Especially if they apply critical thinking to all but one major part. To me that is saying faeries don't exist but homoeopathy is great. Bad comparison but it is all I could think of. It is incompatible and illogical.


You cannot simply pick and choose the bits you like and disregard the rest. It does not and should not work like that.


I can understand religion is in some deeply ingrained; but if they say they are skeptics then they have crossed the line and are ready to remove those religious shackles. How can anybody logically hold onto both ideas that are so very opposed.

I have no problem with people's beliefs, it is their choice. However I, personally cannot accept at this time any claim to be a skeptic from one who is following a god based religion. It is my opinion at this time that they are not indeed a skeptic or are following truly what skepticism promotes.

Like I said I do not understand how the two can be co-joined so my opinion is based on the now I feel. Present me with an understanding of how the two work and co-habit the same space and I may change my opinion. I am not that set in stone.

It is the same argument for an atheist claiming to be moral. Morality is a religious based ideal and again the two are not bed-mates. I would equally reject any claim from an atheist stating to have morality.

 

[brodski]

Irrational beliefs aren't worthy of respect, neither do they command special status (although some folk believe otherwise).

You are wrong, religious beliefs do command special status in every society Iknow of. The question is, should they?

 

[Caius Textor]

You cannot simply pick and choose the bits you like and disregard the rest. It does not and should not work like that.

My point exactly.

It is the same argument for an atheist claiming to be moral. Morality is a religious based ideal and again the two are not bed-mates. I would equally reject any claim from an atheist stating to have morality.

This sounds really weird. You probably understand "morality" in a different than normal way, is that right? Or your trying to set it apart from "ethics" or something?
You certainly don´t think an atheist can´t follow agreed-upon rules of good conduct, or do you?

 

[tkingdoll]

You are wrong, religious beliefs do command special status in every society Iknow of. The question is, should they?

Ha ha, you know that's what I meant in the first place

Command was totally the wrong word to use. Hey, whaddya expect? I don't have time to think about what I type AND be awesome at the same time.

 

[brodski]

Ha ha, you know that's what I meant in the first place

Command was totally the wrong word to use. Hey, whaddya expect? I don't have time to think about what I type AND be awesome at the same time.

I know what you meant, but i was only half joking. The fact is that the societies in which we all live do separate religion from otehr beliefs, which means hat any organization/ movement/ whatever which aims to change the way in which society thinks about things needs to recognize that fact.
Especially as religious beliefs tend to make a different kind of claim from other beliefs which would attract sceptical attention, religious claims tend to be unfalsifiable. where religious claims are testable nobody here objects to them being treated with scepticism.

 

[tsg]

The JREF promotes skepticism. For some people, that results in atheism.

The JREF is not promoting atheism, it is therefore not an "atheist organization".

 

[tkingdoll]

I know what you meant, but i was only half joking. The fact is that the societies in which we all live do separate religion from otehr beliefs, which means hat any organization/ movement/ whatever which aims to change the way in which society thinks about things needs to recognize that fact.

Yes, it's only because of the organisations around the belief that they have any sort of special status at all. So organisations could also reverse that thought. But religion has special status at JREF too. So...

If I came in here and announced my belief in a double-headed hydra which tells me I'm the son of Hercules, I'd be laughed at and mocked, and possibly sectioned. But if I get a million other people believing it, it moves into another category.

But the core belief is still ridiculous.

Especially as religious beliefs tend to make a different kind of claim from other beliefs which would attract sceptical attention, religious claims tend to be unfalsifiable. where religious claims are testable nobody here objects to them being treated with scepticism.

Only in the 'god exists' sense. That's not a testable claim. But when I was a Christian, everything that happened was attributed to divine intervention, including healings, windfalls, bad luck, relationships etc. In which case, there's no difference between saying 'your cancer went away because of the power of Jesus through the laying on of hands' and 'your cancer went away because of this magic bean'.

 

[Beady]

You cannot simply pick and choose the bits you like and disregard the rest.

A computer can't, a human can; computers are logical, humans are emotional. If forced to bet on a human making a logical or an emotional choice, my money is on the emotional.

Consider: If humans were logical, men would ride sidesaddle.

Any given human being is perfectly capable of believing two mutually contradictory things at once, and of acting on that belief. Look at yourself, right now, insisting that emotional beings act exclusively according to logic. What sense does that make?

 

[Caius Textor]

Beady, you do understand how I can use your reasoning to justify pretty much anything I do or say, right?

Being coherent and reasonable is something we should always aim at and aspire to achieve. Not something we should run away from, or loathe at the excuse that "it´s not human."