As a skeptic, do you ever pray?

[DrMatt]

The option "no, I don't believe paranormal phenomena exist and I cannot be bothered with tactics unsupported by evidence" isn't offered. If it were, it might give "no, I believe..." some serious competition.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

The existence of a sky-fairy that popped existence out of nothing (i.e. a god) is an extraordinary claim. A skeptic by definition cannot believe in it, unless he is simply a hypocrite. There seems to be plenty of those.

 

[Mercutio]

The existence of a sky-fairy that popped existence out of nothing (i.e. a god) is an extraordinary claim. A skeptic by definition cannot believe in it, unless he is simply a hypocrite. There seems to be plenty of those.

If you have what you believe to be good evidence, and act in accordance with that evidence, have that evidence hold up to critical scrutiny time and again within a community of people engaged in the investigation of that evidence, are you a hypocrite because the evidence does not hold up to the critical investigation of a different community? Even if you are unaware of that shortcoming?

I think you are too quick to claim hypocrisy, and too broad-brushed in your inference that this belief is held in the absence of evidence (broadly defined, and viewed from the perspective of the believer).

In a different sense...if the vast majority of your culture believes in said sky-fairy, how "extraordinary" is it for you to be swayed by the testimony of respected members of that culture?

(Mind you, I do think that a full understanding would lead to the conclusion that there is no reliable evidence of a god; I simply think that a charge of hypocrisy does not necessarily follow from "skeptic who believes in god".)

 

[delphi_ote]

-42-

Ok I'll bite.. 6x9= 42 ???

Don't Panic!

 

[AOK Tiger]

Traveller,

To answer the second question first, no I don't. I regard the standard versions of God as simply anthropomorphic personifications of something beyond our comprehension. But that need not mean that we cannot describe some of its characteristics, for a cause can communicate to its effect only what it has to communicate. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. We see intelligence, love and morality so we may infer that the cause possessed these qualities. Of course it also possessed their opposites, which is why traditional religions have to postulate an Adversary.

Excellent.. it is great to see logical intelligent theologians do exist.

The old conundrum has an equally old answer. The Universe is a contingent entity, that is, it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. God is a non contingent entity and as such requires no cause. I can't say I am entirely happy with this argument, perhaps because I don't really understand it, but I'm not entirely happy with the notion of a self created universe, which I know I don't understand.

I tend to lean the other way. If everything ever has been shown to have a natural beginning it is fair to assume that the unknown will also end up having a natural beginning.

A good argument for God has always been that something extremely weird by any notion we have had to have happened for a universe to spring from nothing.

I have always argued.. why should this have been a God.. or at least why something sentient ?

 

[Francois Tremblay]

If you have what you believe to be good evidence, and act in accordance with that evidence, have that evidence hold up to critical scrutiny time and again within a community of people engaged in the investigation of that evidence, are you a hypocrite because the evidence does not hold up to the critical investigation of a different community?

There is no evidence for the existence of sky-pixies that break the laws of logic. And unless you can explain what the word "god" means, no evidence is possible either.

 

[mayday]

I sometimes pray for guidance, that I won't do things I will regret, but I don't always pray soon enough.
For example, this morning I went through the drive through at Burger King. This guy took my order. I pulled around to the window and was waiting, I heard this dork with the headset on mocking other customers behind their backs, so when the girl hands me my order out the window I say, "He doesn't need to be mocking people."
She says, "Excuse me?"
I point to the dork (who happens to have his back turned putting napkins in a sack) and repeat, "He doesn't need to be mocking the customers, he sounds goofy enough on his own."
The girl gets pissy and says "Excuuuuuse meee???? " I just drove off. Then I remember that I paid for the food with my debit card, and they have my name. If my bank account ends up drained I will know who to come after.

I am praying for guidance for April 26 when I have to appear in court. It is a mandatory court appearance because a cop saw my 6 yr. old son out of his seatbelt, pulled me over and then cited me for not just the one child but all three, said they were not properly restrained. I've already determined what I'm going to say in court if the judge slaps me with a big fine, I've rehearsed it good. I'm going to mention that $400 or $600 or whatever fine he slaps me with WOULD BUY SOME AWFUL NICE CARSEATS FOR THE KIDS...BUT THIS WHOLE DEAL REALLY ISN'T ABOUT KIDS, I CAN SEE THAT.
I figure this will elicit a smart alec response from the judge, which will result in giving him more of my mind, which may result in contempt of court charges and jail time. But I'm almost looking forward to it. Maybe I can finally get some rest.

 

[El_Spectre]

I'm feeling psychic right now...

I'm gonna suggest that mouthing off to a judge (who has done you no wrong) is going to cause you trouble.

 

[El_Spectre]

-42-

Ok I'll bite.. 6x9= 42 ???

(for the geeks out there)

The universe apparently has an order of operations error, or else it runs on base 13

 

[Ceinwyn]

In times of pressure I will say "Please turn out the way I want it to" but I don't invoke a deity.

If if does turn out, I'm pleased. If it doesn't, I go "well sh!t" and move on.

 

[Ceinwyn]

I figure this will elicit a smart alec response from the judge, which will result in giving him more of my mind, which may result in contempt of court charges and jail time. But I'm almost looking forward to it. Maybe I can finally get some rest.

Your life is fascinating. To you.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. We see intelligence, love and morality so we may infer that the cause possessed these qualities.

Try this:

"The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. We see greeness, octagonality and fluffiness so we may infer that the cause possessed these qualities."

Or:

"The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. We see stupidity, hatred and immorality so we may infer that the cause possessed these qualities."

You see the problem here?

The old conundrum has an equally old answer. The Universe is a contingent entity, that is, it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. God is a non contingent entity and as such requires no cause.

I don't see how the riddle is solved by declaring the universe "contingent" and God "non-contingent". Suppose I said it the other way round. Would that prove anything?

I can't say I am entirely happy with this argument, perhaps because I don't really understand it, but I'm not entirely happy with the notion of a self created universe, which I know I don't understand.

No-one has ever said that we live in a "self-created universe". So I'm not surprised that you're "not entirely happy" with something which no-one has ever believed.

 

[Ceinwyn]

I can't say I am entirely happy with this argument, perhaps because I don't really understand it, but I'm not entirely happy with the notion of a self created universe, which I know I don't understand.

Welcome to the real world, Neo.

"I'm not entirely happy" blah blahblah who asked you. Did you think the world was created for you and your life? The world is what it is. Fit in it or don't. It wasn't created for you and it doesn't care if you live or die.

Make your life, enjoy it, leave it. That's the world.

 

[FortuneHunter]

Do I Ever Pray.....

No...

But caught myself.

I went to corner store and buddy who owns the place gave me a deal on rental DVD's that night. Says - Hey Shannon! You need to buy lottery ticket for tonight!

I paused and said, "Oh you think so?"

He said,"You seem lucky gal today."

I spent 5 bucks on a the 649 lottery draw (goodness!). At the same time, I said pray to the gods I win eh?

Opps...!

I woke up the next morning. Go back to the vid store and found out I won 10 bucks.

Talk about chance eh! I never win on those things!

 

[pyewhackett]

Meditation or mentally listing a desired outcome isn't prayer. To pray is to specifically petition a deity or religious figure, for intercession. It doesn't necessarily suggest that the person has no control over the situation.


Karen.

 

[Mercutio]

There is no evidence for the existence of sky-pixies that break the laws of logic. And unless you can explain what the word "god" means, no evidence is possible either.

From your point of view, there is no evidence, this is true. Now, take a child who is questioning the stories he has heard in sunday school. He goes to a trusted authority, who tells him there is a whole book full of evidence; no, not a physics book, but the bible. He is skeptical of some of what he reads there, so returns to that authority, and perhaps another, questioning the claim skeptically. We certainly have no shortage of science teachers who are creationists (to take just one example), and there are even universities where pre-med students are taught creation science! (It stuns me, too, but I had a childhood friend who went to Oral Roberts University for pre-med...)

It is entirely possible that, because of the prevalence of belief in our culture, a skeptical and inquiring young person may, in a search for evidence, be exposed only to information that would not fulfill your criteria for "evidence". I have had students whose very first exposure to Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was in my intro psych course at the University level! One student in particular was absolutely shocked at what she heard; she had been exposed only to a strawman version in her Kansas school. She was not a fool, nor was she intentionally turning from evidence; she was actively seeking evidence and skeptically examining what she found, but was being fed misinformation. She thanked me for challenging what she had always been taught.

By your logic, innocent people could never be found guilty--there is no evidence, nor could be, that they committed the crime they are found guilty of! In the real world, standards of evidence, and criteria for examining that evidence, vary tremendously. Innocent people are sometimes found guilty. Skeptical, critical thinkers do sometimes conclude that god exists.

 

[jmercer]

Well said, Mercutio. While I'm not going to go through an entire thread debating it again, skepticism doesn't require atheism. It may lead to athiesm, but it's neither a prerequisite or a guaranteed end-result.

People seem to often cite skepticism almost as some kind of philosophy. (Which it can be for some folks, I guess.) I view skepticism as an extremely effective methodology to dealing with the world and discovering truth. (Or at least preventing acceptance of untruths.) It's not the only possible methodology; and like anything else, if carried to extremes, it can be detrimental. One cannot be 100% skeptical over everything at all times without becoming dysfunctional. Some assumptions are necessary; some trust is necessary; and some belief without proof is necessary to function in society, business and within personal relationships as well.

Nor is it necessary for someone to demand evidence regarding every nonphysical (or physical) aspect of existence in order to still be a skeptic.

In example, I would suspect that only a handful of people on these forums can understand the mathematical proofs involved in physics theories - particularly the complex ones. I also suspect that the number of people that believe in Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity is much higher than the number of people that can actually understand the mathematical proofs in the theory itself. (I include myself in the group of people who believe in theory without being able to understand the math. )

These people believe in the theory because they trust in others who do understand it to tell them the truth, and to not be mistaken. They also believe in it because some physical experiments have been done that support the theory... but again, most of them are accepting what is being said by the people who did the experiment, and interpreted the results. They don't have access to the raw data, and even if they did, wouldn't know how to process the data to determine if the results intepreted by others is accurate. They (we) are essentially relying on others to ensure that what is being done is correct, and we are assuming that the expertise and ethics of the people involved are both sufficient to prevent any misinformation being presented.

But even before experiments were done, many physics theorists believed in Einstein's theory based on the mathematical proofs within them. Moreover, a great number of "lay-people" also came to believe in Einstein's theory because of the views held by these trusted experts.

All very similar to the well-written descriptions of how some skeptics came to (and perhaps still) believe in God. By the logic of some posters here, this would make all of these people "non-skeptics" - including the physicists that believed in the theory prior to experimental evidence supporting it - because they've all accepted something without direct access to evidence.

Granted, there are significant differences between believing in deities and belief in theoretical physics; but the underlying mechanism of belief, trust and crediblity of the "experts" without real proof are the same, regardless of whether or not that trust is misplaced. It's simply a necessary part of how society functions.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

By your logic, innocent people could never be found guilty

Most people are irrational and make errors. That does not disprove facts.

Skeptical, critical thinkers do sometimes conclude that god exists.

Yes, of course. They have an emotional interest in making such a conclusion, even though it contradicts their professed skepticism. We should condemn these people whole-heartedly as hypocrites and liars, and reject their claim of being skeptics.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, of course. They have an emotional interest in making such a conclusion, even though it contradicts their professed skepticism. We should condemn these people whole-heartedly as hypocrites and liars, and reject their claim of being skeptics.

No, we should not. We should work to provide the information so that their skeptical inquiry finds it. The examples I gave do not describe hypocrisy, but rather an impoverished (or merely a biased) intellectual environment. Save your label of hypocrite for people like Duane Gish, who lectures on creation science, and who has been corrected so many times that he cannot be unaware of his lies. He is in a position to know better; my student was not.

You are treating all believers as if they have had full access to all available information before making their choice. In our current society, it is perfectly possible for someone to have searched for evidence for quite some time and only found one side. That's why the "E" in JREF is so important.