Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you recognize that "The JREF is neither a theistic nor atheistic organization?" has a different content than "The JREF is not an atheist organization?"

Is there anyone who thinks the JREF is a theistic organization? (Really, we went over this.) The statement was made because some people thought JREF is or ought be an atheistic organization.

Since no one thinks JREF is a theistic organization, making a statement that it is not is no more necessary than making a statement that JREF is not a men's club either.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Teach the controversy is a straw man. Science does teach controversy when it is real. In evolution theory the controversy is not based on science and is not actually real. If it were real, science would of course welcome it.

I agree. And I think pointing out that creationism vs. evolution is not a scientific controversy is key to refuting my friend's approach.

 

[zooterkin]

To the atheist:
Interesting that you should protest so. Let's see, two identifiable groups of people (gays and atheists) both suffering societal condemnation and struggling for legitimacy, and against exclusion. They sound very similar in very salient ways - at least for this conversation. Should we consider your user name a sign that you have "outed" yourself? I suppose you've never heard that expression with respect to atheists before, have you? Or perhaps you do not get the reference...

Not a very close analogy, I'm afraid. In my country, and, I'm pretty sure, The Atheist's, atheists are not in that position.

 

[Prometheus]

...I can see a difference, and it is not my failing if neither you nor Prometheus can (although, honestly, I think both of you are just refusing to consider the subject matter, opting instead for a knee-jerk defensive, fanboy entrenchment). I have been present in chat when a deist, familiar to us all and close to the throne, has commented on the importance of funds from religious sources and has spoken of strategies for making the JREF more palatable to these sources....

The difference you keep pointing out is obvious. The fact that several here keep saying in various ways that it's not important to us for a variety of reasons seems utterly lost on you. The implication you keep making that our disagreement with your position must result either from a reading comprehension problem or a "knee-jerk defensive, fanboy entrenchment" is an obvious false dichotomy.

FWIW, I'd guess, based on very sparse evidence that's available to me, that you're probably correct in your implication that JREF's statement is deliberately aimed at courting favour with theists. So what?

If something as simple and innocuous as this statement is enough to get certain theists to donate money, and perhaps others to participate in the forum, that sounds like a win for the JREF and it's mission to me. If it also results in driving away individuals who are unwilling to approach this topic unemotionally, then that's too bad, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

By responding in the way that you do, you are only giving the theists you apparently hate exactly what you seem to think they want. Where's the sense in that?

 

[Earthborn]

Why can't science develop answers for every question?!

Because some questions are not scientific? While I think it is fair to say that the magisteria are not perfectly non-overlapping, and do sometimes intrude on each other's fields, to me it seems that during the development of both science and religion and the thinking about them, both tend to become less overlapping. Major religions make fewer falsifiable claims than they used to, and science steers away from the unfalsifiable.

 

[Wowbagger]

Because some questions are not scientific?

Can you name some pertinent examples?

 

[Wowbagger]

I don't know if this was brought up, yet, but I recalled that TAM 4 actually had a panel discussion asking "Can a Skeptic Believe in God?", and it was preceded by Hal Bidlack giving a speech about his personal views of deism.

Here are three quotes, from Hal, that are most relevant in answering the question about JREF. These could be found between the time codes of 2:27 and 2:29 on the TAM4 DVD Disc #4.

It seems to me that whenever a person makes a testable claim, be it about dowsing or bending keys or talking to a dead relative... we are in the realm of things where the JREF challenge makes sense, but Mr. Randi does not attempt to test the untestable.
​

(snip)

I believe that Mr. Randi is very wise to set religious matters aside, for the most part, and in the formal work of the JREF. As the core claims of faith are inherently not testable, there is little to be gained by wading through that minefield.
​

And, I know some of you will just love this one (emphasis mine):

The JREF relies on voluntary contributions to keep going, and the vast majority of the potential donor base does not embrace atheism. And, one of my concerns is making sure that the JREF can pay the light bill.
​

I also tried to mine for quotes from the actual panel, but nothing was as relevant to this thread as the things Hal said, that I quoted.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

... "vast majority"....
interesting

Watch the seagulls swoop on that chip.
Let the squabbling begin....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because some questions are not scientific? While I think it is fair to say that the magisteria are not perfectly non-overlapping, and do sometimes intrude on each other's fields, to me it seems that during the development of both science and religion and the thinking about them, both tend to become less overlapping. Major religions make fewer falsifiable claims than they used to, and science steers away from the unfalsifiable.

And then wny not put all woo into the religion category, call it NOMA and go our merry way, disband the JREF.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know if this was brought up, yet, but I recalled that TAM 4 actually had a panel discussion asking "Can a Skeptic Believe in God?", and it was preceded by Hal Bidlack giving a speech about his personal views of deism.

Here are three quotes, from Hal, that are most relevant in answering the question about JREF. These could be found between the time codes of 2:27 and 2:29 on the TAM4 DVD Disc #4.

It seems to me that whenever a person makes a testable claim, be it about dowsing or bending keys or talking to a dead relative... we are in the realm of things where the JREF challenge makes sense, but Mr. Randi does not attempt to test the untestable.
​

(snip)

I believe that Mr. Randi is very wise to set religious matters aside, for the most part, and in the formal work of the JREF. As the core claims of faith are inherently not testable, there is little to be gained by wading through that minefield.
​

And, I know some of you will just love this one (emphasis mine):

The JREF relies on voluntary contributions to keep going, and the vast majority of the potential donor base does not embrace atheism. And, one of my concerns is making sure that the JREF can pay the light bill.
​

I also tried to mine for quotes from the actual panel, but nothing was as relevant to this thread as the things Hal said, that I quoted.

Claiming god beliefs are untestable is an attempt to move the goal post off the playing field. But it results in two problems.

1) The only god beliefs that make no claims are those which people who are otherwise looking for evidence have defined their gods so that no one can challenge the belief.

And 2) It fails the logic test. If a god does not interact with the Universe, (aka an untestable god), then there is no way for any humans to be aware of said god. A god who makes its presence known is interacting with the Universe.


Deism is a skeptic's exercise in not being able to let go of god despite the overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings. It is the classical fitting the evidence to the belief rather than following the evidence to the conclusion.

 

[Wowbagger]

Deism is a skeptic's exercise in not being able to let go of god despite the overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings. It is the classical fitting the evidence to the belief rather than following the evidence to the conclusion.

But, one can still be a skeptic towards all other types of woo, (some of which would more likely cause harm if they weren't skeptical), even if that is the case.

A deist can still: Fight against the anti-vax movement, debunk alien landings, promote proper practice of the scientific method, embrace evolutionary biology, reject quackery, hold their own in a conversation among other skeptics, and donate money to the JREF; etc.

Not that I'm a deist, though. But, Hal Bidlack is a good example of what it's possible for a deist to achieve in the skeptical world. I also know a few other deists, who also make good contributions to the organization and the skeptical "movement" in general.


ETA: Deists can also fight against religious claims that are testable, such as the "power" of prayer, or the "healing powers" of Jesus Christ's tears.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you name some pertinent examples?

The claim that the consecrated host is the body of Christ even though it retains all the accidents of the host is not testable. Any measurement you take looks the same whether the claim is true or false. (Of course, since there is no evidence FOR the claim, it's a silly thing to believe.)

Another example, "Is an unabsolved but baptized Christian in a state of grace?"

Similarly, most claims of "goddidit" are untestable. Even when we can prove beyond any doubt what the necessary and sufficient cause of something is, they simply shift "goddidit" to that.

Claims that are purely supernatural (whether an archangel is closer to God than a seraph, for example, or the number of gifts of the Holy Spirit).

They're untestable the way Carl Sagan's invisible, weightless, odorless and otherwise wholly undetectable dragon is untestable. There's no measurable or detectable difference whether the claim is true or false.

Even laying aside the testability issue, there is the issue that some religious claims are purely based on faith--that is they don't even claim there is any evidence for their beliefs. (That's why I say theism is fundamentally inconsistent with skepticism. Faith is a method for reaching conclusions that is completely antithetical to skepticism and critical thinking.)

Many of the paranormal claims that Randi was most concerned with when he first established the Challenge actually fooled academics. These claims came with claims of scientific validity. So I don't think there's any double standard operating when those are the things Randi and the JREF most often focus on.

From the Flim Flam chapter on religious claims (titled "Gods with Feats of Clay"):

The subject of religion hardly belongs in this book, but certain aspects must be included. The very nature of religion dictates that it need not offer or claim scientific proof of its teachings. (Philosophical proof is another matter.) Occasionally some sect or other ventures to produce scientific proof, and this makes it a legitimate target for questions that probe such claims. Some religions have used outright deception in the same way that less respectable individuals and groups have done. These are part of our examination, and quite properly so.

So it seems Randi limits his attention to religious claims of scientific proof or those that engage in deception. I don't think this is an espousal of NOMA; nor do I think his record (or that of JREF) is any kind of double standard.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But, one can still be a skeptic towards all other types of woo, (some of which would more likely cause harm if they weren't skeptical), even if that is the case.

A deist can still: Fight against the anti-vax movement, debunk alien landings, promote proper practice of the scientific method, embrace evolutionary biology, reject quackery, hold their own in a conversation among other skeptics, and donate money to the JREF; etc.

Not that I'm a deist, though. But, Hal Bidlack is a good example of what it's possible for a deist to achieve in the skeptical world. I also know a few other deists, who also make good contributions to the organization and the skeptical "movement" in general.


ETA: Deists can also fight against religious claims that are testable, such as the "power" of prayer, or the "healing powers" of Jesus Christ's tears.

This is all true, but the issue at hand, the god-belief is still one that cannot be reached by the application of skepticism or critical thinking. It's an article of faith. Again, you could claim these are "good skeptics" on issues other than their god belief, but that's an awful big issue to look beyond.

I guess it's like saying, aside from owning slaves, X was a great proponent of freedom. People can argue that Thomas Jefferson did much to advance freedom, but he was nevertheless a slave owner.

 

[Peter i]

And, I know some of you will just love this one (emphasis mine):

The JREF relies on voluntary contributions to keep going, and the vast majority of the potential donor base does not embrace atheism. And, one of my concerns is making sure that the JREF can pay the light bill.
​

I also tried to mine for quotes from the actual panel, but nothing was as relevant to this thread as the things Hal said, that I quoted.

Nice one!

From the start reading this thread I had the thought that JREF is based in America, and the "one nation under Gawd"-thing could play a role.


"Being rational and sceptic is OK, but don't you dare question Jeebus"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But, one can still be a skeptic towards all other types of woo, (some of which would more likely cause harm if they weren't skeptical), even if that is the case.

A deist can still: Fight against the anti-vax movement, debunk alien landings, promote proper practice of the scientific method, embrace evolutionary biology, reject quackery, hold their own in a conversation among other skeptics, and donate money to the JREF; etc.

Not that I'm a deist, though. But, Hal Bidlack is a good example of what it's possible for a deist to achieve in the skeptical world. I also know a few other deists, who also make good contributions to the organization and the skeptical "movement" in general.


ETA: Deists can also fight against religious claims that are testable, such as the "power" of prayer, or the "healing powers" of Jesus Christ's tears.

I've never suggested skeptics with blind spots don't belong here. In fact I said, I doubt any of us are perfect skeptics.


It surprises me that with the majority on the forum being atheist or agnostic that the donor base would be more theist than not. Or does that quote refer to agnostics?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The claim that the consecrated host is the body of Christ even though it retains all the accidents of the host is not testable. Any measurement you take looks the same whether the claim is true or false. (Of course, since there is no evidence FOR the claim, it's a silly thing to believe.)

Another example, "Is an unabsolved but baptized Christian in a state of grace?"

This is like saying there's an invisible dragon in the garage.

It fails the logic test many people thinking along the lines as you are don't think to apply. If these conditions or invisible things are as you say, then how are you aware of them? It is not logical something that looks the same while someone knows they are not the same but without any evidence. Claims need to be testable but they also need to be logical. If you throw logic out then you can say homeopathy works. Your claim does not need evidence, all you need do is make the claim and say it is untestable.

 

[Earthborn]

Can you name some pertinent examples?

Sure.

"At which point does a foetus become a person worthy of protection?"
"Is it moral for a hungry person to steal a loaf of bread?"
"What is the purpose of life?"
"Who should I vote for?"
"Should I eat another piece of chocolate cake?"

 

[Earthborn]

And then wny not put all woo into the religion category, call it NOMA and go our merry way, disband the JREF.

Because some woo is scientifically testable.

Claims need to be testable but they also need to be logical.

If they are scientific claims, yes. But trying to apply the criteria of one magisterium on the issues of another magisterium and concluding that it doesn't make sense, doesn't prove NOMA wrong. Quite the opposite, it shows how the tools from one cannot apply to the other; and therefore that they could be considered non-overlapping.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is like saying there's an invisible dragon in the garage.

It fails the logic test many people thinking along the lines as you are don't think to apply. If these conditions or invisible things are as you say, then how are you aware of them?

I agree that god claims and Sagan's invisible dragon are vulnerable to logical refutation. However, awareness of something is not a prerequisite for that thing's existence. (In fact, I've made that very argument against someone who claims that extra terrestrial intelligences must not exist since we have no evidence of them.)

It is not logical something that looks the same while someone knows they are not the same but without any evidence. Claims need to be testable but they also need to be logical. If you throw logic out then you can say homeopathy works. Your claim does not need evidence, all you need do is make the claim and say it is untestable.

But the claims of homeopathy are testable.

I agree, by the standard of faith, evidence is irrelevant. And the only safe haven for faith-based claims are those that are untestable. And I agree (so does Randi in the Flim Flam quote I just provided) that we can approach them using logic (what Randi called "philosophical proof"). I also think we ought do that, and JREF has provided us with a forum where we can do that. Randi has never seemed too interested in making philosophical arguments.

My point was merely that there's no double standard going on. Randi went after claims that were either claimed to be supported by science or the ones that he was able to expose as fraud (Popoff, for example). He only opened the Challenge to claims that are testable (and not even all of those--ethics precludes testing some claims). It just so happens that more pseudoscience and parapsychological claims fall into that category than do religious claims.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Frankly, I don't buy that the JREF is kowtowing to theistic donors. Even Bidlack's quote doesn't say that ("do not embrace atheism" isn't necessarily the same as "are theist"), and his statement is far from evidence of what he says.

Randi's emphasis of investigation hasn't changed dramatically (or even noticeably?) since before the founding of JREF in 1996.

 

[Wowbagger]

Earthborn, each of your examples might be primarily answered by the "faith magisterium" (or whatever), by most people, today. But, there is no reason why science can not grant us insight into them. At least in principal, (and I suspect in practice, as time marches on).

"At which point does a foetus become a person worthy of protection?"

Science shows us that there is not a single "point" to worry about, but rather a gradual process of development, that deserves a gradual issuance of protection. Where the "lines" of such protections are drawn can change over time, depending on human interest and need, and of course: further scientific research.

"Is it moral for a hungry person to steal a loaf of bread?"

Game theory can give us insight into the risks vs. rewards of stealing something, for both the individual and the society at large. We can mold and shape our moral codes and laws based on what works out most efficiently, mathematically. Much of biological evolution is based on this kind of stuff.

Social sciences could also give us some insight, perhaps in a more general, less mathematically specific way.

"What is the purpose of life?"

Life emerged as a consequence of natural forces acting on naturally occurring self-replicating systems. Our "purpose", if there is one, is ultimately determined by our evolutionary heritage. Which basically amounts to "reproduction!!!!", for the most part.

How your genes helped you develop their own, specific survival strategies for doing so, is largely based on the particulars of both your genetic heritage and the particulars of your environment. And, sometimes this results in life forms that do not reproduce. But, even then we can trace the reasons why back to all those particulars.

Any other "purpose" one can say they have stems from all that stuff.

"Who should I vote for?"

The candidate with the best science policies.

"Should I eat another piece of chocolate cake?"

Like the "stealing bread" example, science can help us measure the risks and rewards for eating yet another piece of chocolate cake. The social implications might not be quite as relevant as the other example; but one can measure the caloric intake and weigh it against the happiness they would feel about eating it, etc.

You might argue that few people are going to pull out calculators to actually go through with all the science stuff. But, my point is that science can still answer these questions, in principal. They are not "faith only".



ETA: JoeTheJuggler's examples were better, but less relevant to anything that really matters.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Science shows us that there is not a single "point" to worry about, but rather a gradual process of development, that deserves a gradual issuance of protection. Where the "lines" of such protections are drawn can change over time, depending on human interest and need, and of course: further scientific research.

And even so, most of these questions at best point to separate magisteria between science and philosophy/ethics rather than establishing a realm exclusive to religion.

Your broader point is the one that matters: everything that is considered to be in the science magisterium today was once in that of religion--all of it. There's no reason to think ethics and morality will forever beyond the grasp of science. We've already made some big advances in that area (showing which brain structures and pathways are used in moral reasoning, identifying the mirror neurons, etc.)

ETA: JoeTheJuggler's examples were better, but less relevant to anything that really matters.

I was just responding to the charge that there are no such thing as untestable religious claims. I agree that untestable claims are absurd--there's no reason to believe them precisely because any measurement you take will look just as you would expect if the claim was false. (At that point, Occam's Razor kicks in.)

ETA: I wonder if we should start a separate thread to discuss NOMA since we're now drifting pretty far off the topic of this thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because some woo is scientifically testable.

If they are scientific claims, yes. But trying to apply the criteria of one magisterium on the issues of another magisterium and concluding that it doesn't make sense, doesn't prove NOMA wrong. Quite the opposite, it shows how the tools from one cannot apply to the other; and therefore that they could be considered non-overlapping.

I addressed this already.

If you are claiming religion answers questions science does not, that is bull. Religion does not answer those questions either. Science can, however, tell us why we choose certain answers but not what the answer should be. Religion merely reflects the answers we choose in most cases. In a few cases religion is the source of indoctrination which influences an answer to those questions. But it does not provide the answer to the question in the sense you are describing.

If you are claiming that certain religious questions don't make testable claims, that is also bull. Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical. How would anyone be aware of a god that does not do anything testable?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree that god claims and Sagan's invisible dragon are vulnerable to logical refutation. However, awareness of something is not a prerequisite for that thing's existence. (In fact, I've made that very argument against someone who claims that extra terrestrial intelligences must not exist since we have no evidence of them.)

This is not analogous. Life exists in the Universe. We are it. So there is a logical reason to hypothesize life exists elsewhere in the Universe besides on planet Earth.

Awareness of something is a different issue. Claiming you are aware a god exists says that god interacted with the Universe.

But the claims of homeopathy are testable.

So are god claims. If one claims gods are [x] or gods do [x], that is testable. If one claims gods exist but do nothing, it is illogical one could be aware of such a god.

My point was merely that there's no double standard going on. ...

The double standard is not in the fact no one within the JREF is arguing against god beliefs or the JREF isn't equally concerned with false god belief claims.

The double standard is only with JREF members and/or other skeptics who put god woo into a special category. Claiming god beliefs are untestable when they are either testable claims or illogical claims, and, claiming faith based belief serves a different purpose from science as if that means god woo is different from other woo.

 

[Earthborn]

But it does not provide the answer to the question in the sense you are describing.

I don't think I have been describing "any sense in answering questions." You must be confusing me with someone else. All I have been saying is that some questions are not scientific questions and therefore belong outside the magisterium of science.

If you are claiming that certain religious questions don't make testable claims, that is also bull.

Some questions, among them religious questions make no testable claims. I don't see how you can deny this.

Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical.

Again you are applying the criteria from the magisterium of science to that of religion where it doesn't belong. A scientific claim needs to be logical, a god belief does not need to be logical.

 

[Earthborn]

But, my point is that science can still answer these questions, in principal.

Science can't answer them, and your so called answers show how it can't. Your responses go to absurd lengths to avoid answering the questions, and that is the only thing science can do: gather more scientific data, usually making the questions harder to answer instead of easier. It is pretty much always harder to make an informed decision than an uninformed one.

"These are the risks, these are the benefits. What do you want to do?" is not an answer to "what should I do?" It may be that there is no single answer, and the choice is arbitrary.

They are not "faith only".

I didn't claim they are faith only. I claimed they are not scientific. Surely you don't want to claim that everything is scientific -- even pseudo-scientific woo?

 

[Earthborn]

The double standard is only with JREF members and/or other skeptics who put god woo into a special category.

The double standard is not necessarily a problem. It only becomes a problem when one thinks the standards of one magisterium apply to another. For example if one claims empirical evidence for a particular type of woo, or if one claims that scientific standards apply to non-empirical personal beliefs.

Claiming god beliefs are untestable when they are either testable claims or illogical claims, and, claiming faith based belief serves a different purpose from science

Faith based beliefs serve a different purpose than science does. They serve primarily emotional needs.

as if that means god woo is different from other woo.

I think that's what it means. God beliefs are either testable or "illogical" (assuming scientific premises), but testability and logic are different things. JREF offers a million dollars to things that are testable (logical or illogical), but it doesn't offer a million dollars to things that are logical or illogical (that are untestable). Some "god woo" is therefore different from other woo.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you are claiming religion answers questions science does not, that is bull. Religion does not answer those questions either.

Well they do answer these questions. The answers just aren't evidence-based (they're faith based). In fact, the way Catholic catechism used to be taught was a series of questions and answers.

The answers that make claims about the natural world are most often flat out wrong. The ones that make claims that aren't testable (see above) are just things that we have no reason whatsoever to believe. (Sagan's dragon in the garage.)

Science can, however, tell us why we choose certain answers but not what the answer should be. Religion merely reflects the answers we choose in most cases. In a few cases religion is the source of indoctrination which influences an answer to those questions. But it does not provide the answer to the question in the sense you are describing.

I would go farther than that. First, as I mentioned recently, separating questions on morality does not carve out a niche for religion. (There are any number of atheistic philosophical approaches to answering moral questions.) And second, science can and is answering the broader questions about morality (like how it evolved, what brain structures are involved, etc.)

If you are claiming that certain religious questions don't make testable claims, that is also bull. Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical. How would anyone be aware of a god that does not do anything testable?

I dunno. . .divine revelation, teaching authority, personal subjective mystical experience, etc. I agree that believing these things isn't reasonable (anymore than it is to believe in the existence of Sagan's dragon), but I'm not sure that's the same as illogical. (Though I would agree that at least most well-defined claims like this are also illogical--the way a 4 sided triangle is illogical.)

 

[Wowbagger]

Your responses go to absurd lengths to avoid answering the questions,

My answers were just as general as your questions.

For example, you asked: "Is it moral for a hungry person to steal a loaf of bread?", so I offered a general strategy for how science can answer that type of question.

If you want to be more specific, and ask something like: "It is moral for Joe Schmoington, who is impoverished and very hungry, to steal a loaf of bread, given the socio-economic climate he is in, perhaps one where the government makes alternatives such as soup kitchens difficult to establish?", etc., we can calculate that! The more variables you put in, the more specific the question is, and the more specifically science can answer it.

In some cases, such as attaching rights to a fetus, we are still in relatively early stages of understanding embryology and evo/devo and all that stuff. But, the more science understands the situation, the more specific its answers will become, over time.

and that is the only thing science can do: gather more scientific data, usually making the questions harder to answer instead of easier. It is pretty much always harder to make an informed decision than an uninformed one.

I agree that it is harder. But, that is not the issue. The answers are also more accurate when they are more informed.

If you are going to argue that they should not be scientific questions, you have to address why science can reliably answer them, even if it takes a lot more effort.

I agree with JoeTheJuggler: Every question that is now scientific was once considered religious. Every one of them! As science progresses, it eats up more and more of religion's questions for itself. I see no reason why we could not have good, solid empirical answers for moral questions, one day.

I didn't claim they are faith only. I claimed they are not scientific. Surely you don't want to claim that everything is scientific -- even pseudo-scientific woo?

Or whatever the non-science magisterium is called.

Pseudo-scientific woo often makes testable claims. They usually fail those tests, and quite miserably so. But, the claims can still, often, be tackled by science, none-the-less.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So are god claims. If one claims gods are [x] or gods do [x], that is testable.

How do you test the claim, for example, that god's grace offers eternal salvation? Where the claims are testable (intercessory prayer, faith healing, etc.), I don't think JREF has shied away from them.

If one claims gods exist but do nothing, it is illogical one could be aware of such a god.

Again, awareness of something by an observer isn't a prerequisite to the thing's existence. (There are plenty of people who have no awareness of me, but I exist!) I agree though that it is wholly unreasonable to believe in something when you have no evidence (no reason to believe) the thing exists. It's only illogical to believe the existence of a thing if the thing's existence presents a logical contradiction (like 4 sided triangles or a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and all-compassionate given the existence of pain and suffering in the world).

The double standard is not in the fact no one within the JREF is arguing against god beliefs or the JREF isn't equally concerned with false god belief claims.

But I don't think that's being done. I understand it would seem that way if your position that all god claims are testable were true, but it's not.

The double standard is only with JREF members and/or other skeptics who put god woo into a special category. Claiming god beliefs are untestable when they are either testable claims or illogical claims, and, claiming faith based belief serves a different purpose from science as if that means god woo is different from other woo.

But JREF isn't about making logical arguments, but rather actual controlled tests/demonstrations of claims. That's a position that is consistent (JREF has never been interested in the theory behind a claim). So if you accept that some claims aren't testable, it's not especially relevant that there is what Randi calls "philosophical proof" or disproof of these untestable claims.

And back to the issue of what we mean by what kind of organization JREF is, I think the majority of members consider these philosophical arguments to be a done deal (decided in favor of atheism). The forums certainly have no dearth of arguments about logical "proofs" of god. And I think the theists in the crowd (many of whom aren't JREF members) are an extreme minority and can't be said to be reflective of JREF.

I just don't see a double standard. I'm still willing to take your word that Phil Plaitt is pro-NOMA, but I'm becoming less certain since you seem to think anyone who accepts that there are untestable claims is pro NOMA.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Pseudo-scientific woo often makes testable claims. They usually fail those tests, and quite miserably so. But, the claims can still, often, be tackled by science, none-the-less.

They also make untestable claims. For example, Uri Geller's claims of PK powers that only work if you don't look too closely is untestable. Unrecorded predictions (precognition or clairvoyance or whatever) announced after the fact are untestable.

 

[The Atheist]

... in principal...

Ah, the old problem of the principles of principals.

Since I've got my Grammar tag back again, I feel forced to note that you're talking about principles. They may well be the principal ones, but they're "le".

(Bloody excellent argument too - you're right on the money)

 

[Wowbagger]

Ah, the old problem of the principles of principals.

Oh yeah?! We'll see how Prince Apoles feels about that!!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think I have been describing "any sense in answering questions." You must be confusing me with someone else. All I have been saying is that some questions are not scientific questions and therefore belong outside the magisterium of science.

Some questions, among them religious questions make no testable claims. I don't see how you can deny this.

Again you are applying the criteria from the magisterium of science to that of religion where it doesn't belong. A scientific claim needs to be logical, a god belief does not need to be logical.

You have to understand here that I have a particular point of view that I recognize not everyone holds, but at the same time, I am confident my view is supportable. That view is what I posted: "Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical."

Once a person says a god exists, if you don't inquire further, you can say that declaration makes no testable claim.

I don't see it that way because I see the logical path there which says if you make such a claim, you are also claiming that you know about the god's existence. If a god exists but doesn't interact with the Universe, one cannot test for the existence of that god. But by the same token, one has no way of being aware of the existence of such a god.

The person who says he knows a god exists or believes it for [xyz] reason, has now made a testable claim. That god made its presence known. We should be able to test that claim.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You have to understand here that I have a particular point of view that I recognize not everyone holds, but at the same time, I am confident my view is supportable. That view is what I posted: "Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical."

Once a person says a god exists, if you don't inquire further, you can say that declaration makes no testable claim.

I don't see it that way because I see the logical path there which says if you make such a claim, you are also claiming that you know about the god's existence. If a god exists but doesn't interact with the Universe, one cannot test for the existence of that god. But by the same token, one has no way of being aware of the existence of such a god.

The person who says he knows a god exists or believes it for [xyz] reason, has now made a testable claim. That god made its presence known. We should be able to test that claim.

This makes sense to me now SG.

But how does one test what is in ones heart?
my emphasis

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The double standard is not necessarily a problem. It only becomes a problem when one thinks the standards of one magisterium apply to another. For example if one claims empirical evidence for a particular type of woo, or if one claims that scientific standards apply to non-empirical personal beliefs.

I don't buy the concept of NOMa. So for me, this is not correct. I see no reason to split the Universe into real and some nebulous anything goes as long as you don't make a testable claim side of the Universe.

There are 2 concepts at least where something may exist that is outside the realm of science. We have no way of observing something outside the Universe or even if an outside the Universe exists and the same goes for anything from before the Big Bang. I have no way of knowing those two things.

So what if there was a god outside the Universe or before the BB or not? So what if there are invisible unicorns or multiverses? The answer, so nothing. Why discuss gods anymore than invisible pink unicorns outside the Universe?

Faith based beliefs serve a different purpose than science does. They serve primarily emotional needs.

Hope that some quackery will affect a terminal cancer serves an emotional need as well.

I'm only arguing to drop the double standard. I'm not arguing all false beliefs are bad. Why didn't you include the benefit of other placebos and emotional comforts in that statement?

I think that's what it means. God beliefs are either testable or "illogical" (assuming scientific premises), but testability and logic are different things. JREF offers a million dollars to things that are testable (logical or illogical), but it doesn't offer a million dollars to things that are logical or illogical (that are untestable). Some "god woo" is therefore different from other woo.

Again, treat god beliefs the same way you treat invisible pink unicorn beliefs and I'll be satisfied. I don't buy it however, that people who are agnostic about gods are truly equally agnostic about invisible pink unicorns.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well they do answer these questions. The answers just aren't evidence-based (they're faith based). In fact, the way Catholic catechism used to be taught was a series of questions and answers.

But the answers are not faith based, they are people based. So why carve out a faith based anything unless you recognize faith based is just as human based as, "because I said so".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You have to understand here that I have a particular point of view that I recognize not everyone holds, but at the same time, I am confident my view is supportable. That view is what I posted: "Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical."

I would agree with that statement, at least within some limits.

But, that doesn't mean JREF has some sort of double standard. I've shown that Randi in particular and JREF in the MDC isn't interested in matters of logical proofs. They're all about empirical testing or inductive reasoning.

Thus, the difference is one that's between testable and untestable claims and not one that's between religious vs. non-religious claims.

I don't see it that way because I see the logical path there which says if you make such a claim, you are also claiming that you know about the god's existence. If a god exists but doesn't interact with the Universe, one cannot test for the existence of that god. But by the same token, one has no way of being aware of the existence of such a god.

Yes, you've said this before, and I've said before that awareness of a thing is not a prerequisite for the existence of that thing. The deist god claim is just what you describe, a god that doesn't interact with the universe and that no one can have any evidence of.

The person who says he knows a god exists or believes it for [xyz] reason, has now made a testable claim. That god made its presence known. We should be able to test that claim.

I disagree. How can you test a generic claim for the existence of god? (One that is not accompanied by any other claim?)

Or what about the accompanying claims of the sort I mentioned before? For examples: "God can magically change the wafer into the body of Christ but make the wafer retain all the accidents of the wafer" or "an archangel is closer to God than a seraph".

I agree there's no evidence to support these claims, but faith is pretty much by definition not evidence-based. I also agree that it's silly and unreasonable to believe things when there is no evidence of them. However, it doesn't make the claim illogical--not unless there is a contradiction (what illogical means) within the concept or between the claim and something measurable or observable.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But the answers are not faith based, they are people based. So why carve out a faith based anything unless you recognize faith based is just as human based as, "because I said so".

I agree with you that there is absolutely no reason to believe these things. I agree that they're silly and unreasonable things to believe.

However, they are answers to questions. Some of the answers are testable (and we know them to be wrong). Some answers are untestable, though susceptible to disproof by logic (what Randi calls "philosophical proof"). I think JREF is only interested in testable claims and not in disproof by logic.

At any rate, the distinction between testable and untestable claims does not line up with non-religious vs. religious claims. Many untestable claims are religious, but not all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do you test the claim, for example, that god's grace offers eternal salvation? Where the claims are testable (intercessory prayer, faith healing, etc.), I don't think JREF has shied away from them.

Once you tell me how god communicates with you, we can test that. If you are making no testable claim, how do you know anything about god?

For example, Christians claim god speaks to them through the Bible. But you can easily show the Bible is of human origin. There is no special knowledge, it fits only the culture that wrote it, there are equivalent texts for other religions in other regions of the world, the Bible stories resemble oral mythology out of Africa and so on.

Name me another way god communicates.

It would appear you are just willing to leave that elephant in the room out of the equation. I'm not. If you claim you are aware of a god, I have to ask the logical question, tell me how. That how is a testable claim.

Again, awareness of something by an observer isn't a prerequisite to the thing's existence. (There are plenty of people who have no awareness of me, but I exist!) I agree though that it is wholly unreasonable to believe in something when you have no evidence (no reason to believe) the thing exists. It's only illogical to believe the existence of a thing if the thing's existence presents a logical contradiction (like 4 sided triangles or a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and all-compassionate given the existence of pain and suffering in the world).

But the people who are not aware of you are not claiming they are aware of you.

...But JREF isn't about making logical arguments, but rather actual controlled tests/demonstrations of claims. That's a position that is consistent (JREF has never been interested in the theory behind a claim). So if you accept that some claims aren't testable, it's not especially relevant that there is what Randi calls "philosophical proof" or disproof of these untestable claims.

Well I address this problem another way. The scientific process requires we follow the evidence, not fit the evidence to the conclusion.

The evidence is overwhelming that gods are mythical beings. I don't need to go anywhere else but where the evidence leads.

I just don't see a double standard. I'm still willing to take your word that Phil Plaitt is pro-NOMA, but I'm becoming less certain since you seem to think anyone who accepts that there are untestable claims is pro NOMA.

When I went looking for examples of Phil's position, I got the impression he has shifted some from the old days. I don't want to speak for him if he has.

When I first came upon the skeptical community it was via Phil in his old BA forum days. He was very big then on NOMa, at least in principle. I think over the years he may be reassessing that position. I'd love to know but he doesn't often join in forum discussions.