Can you advocate both religion and skepticism?

[Steven Howard]

We get a lot of threads here about whether skepticism and belief in God are compatible. This is not one of those threads, although it's obviously inspired by them. The question I'm interested in is more about behavior than belief.

Can you simultaneously be a member of an organization like the JREF, which exists to promote skepticism and critical thinking, and also a member of a religion that strongly encourages you to proselytize, like most American Protestant churches? Because personally I would have a problem with that. I would have a hard time saying to people that they shouldn't listen to unproven claims about psychics, ESP, or UFOs, and then asking them to "open their hearts to Jesus." Maybe that's just me.

And even if I didn't actively proselytize, it would still bother me. I'd still be a member of that church, and I'd know that other church members were trying to convert people. And if it's like the churches I went to growing up, there'd be frequent sermons about how it was my duty to go out and "witness" to people, to "share the Good News" and all that. So I'd simultaneously feel guilty for not doing it, and like a hypocrite for thinking I shouldn't do it. But again, that's just me.

I know many posters here don't consider themselves skeptics, or don't think it's important to promote critical thinking. I'm not talking about them.

I know many posters here are not members of mainstream Protestant churches that put a lot of emphasis on proselytizing. I'm not talking about them either.

Maybe there just isn't anybody in that group. Maybe nobody here is going to the post office and sending a check to the JREF or CSI on Saturday and then going to an old-fashioned hard-bench American Protestant church like the one I grew up in and dropping another check into the collection plate on Sunday.

But if there are such people, and they feel like discussing it, I'd be really interested to learn whether they see any sort of conflict or contradiction there, and if so how they deal with it.

 

[Steven Howard]

P.S. I know I probably just started a fight. But please believe me when I say I tried really hard not to.

 

[frankvan]

I'm sure there are such people, even though I'm not one of them. Just as there are people who believe in ghosts, clairvoyants, etc. and still post on forums such as this one. I suspect they do so mostly for the purpose of convincing agnostics, and atheists of the error of their ways. Personally, I don't think it's possible to accept belief in a supreme being and still consider onesself a genuine skeptic.

 

[Anthem]

I think it is definitely possible to be a member of the JREF (forum) and hold a belief in god... if you have a computer, internet-access and subscribed to this forum, I see no problem at all


Edited to add:
It should be possible advocating both a belief in god and skepticism.

One might even hold several beliefs or superstitions I guess...It might be possible to gain additional knowledge (through skepticism) about superstitions or beliefs, thus changing one's views about them. Though I can imagine some of those might be too integrated in one's daily life to 'just' do that. But is it mandatory to change one's belief as soon as one advocate's scepticism?

 

[skeptical]

I don't see how one could simultaneously promote both dogma and skepticism. Dogma, by definition, requires belief in the face of disconfirming evidence.

Promoting some sort of abstract belief in a god or gods such as Deism or Pantheism would be a different matter because as far as I can see, there is no dogma involved in those belief systems.

I could also see how someone might promote a particular church because of its good works or sense of community, but the danger of promoting dogma would always lurk in the background.

 

[articulett]

I would be curious to know if there are people who donate to Skeptic organizations like JREF and/or church state separation groups who also donate to support a church other than, say, the Unitarians or Buddhists --who tend to be very non-theistic. It would seem bizarre to me to promote an organization that promotes faith based thinking while, at the same time, supporting an organization that supports reason and evidence based thinking.

Are there those who call themselves skeptics who think that you can know something that is objectively true and real through "faith"?

 

[hammegk]

Look deep enough and you will find your basic faith is that an objective rule-governed reality comprised solely of inanimate energy and matter exists.

Secondarily, you have faith that all answers of merit concerning that reality can be appropriately analyzed by science.

 

[articulett]

Secondarily, you have faith that all answers of merit concerning that reality can be appropriately analyzed by science.

Yes, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. See the computer you are typing on-- thank science. What useful knowledge has come through faith? How do you weed distinguish one faith based notion from another? Aren't they all equally likely to be true or untrue? What demonstrable truths has faith given us? We know many of them are lies, misinterpretations, myths, stories, etc. but so far there is no evidence than anything valid has come via faith. We know it can make people feel good or like they have some sort of answer, but we have no means of verifying that they have anything more than an illusion. Unless you have evidence to show otherwise.

ETA: Is Martillo saying anything that makes sense to anyone else or is this another version of "science is a faith" too where words are used to say nothing but infer some mystical deepness that the woo can interpret as they wish?

 

[frankvan]

[QUOTE

ETA: Is Martillo saying anything that makes sense to anyone else or is this another version of "science is a faith" too where words are used to say nothing but infer some mystical deepness that the woo can interpret as they wish?[/QUOTE]

I think it makes a kind of sense, to some people. I think I would answer it that I have faith in the scientific method of arriving at the best answer 'til now. If there is some system whereby the explanation of observed phenomena can be determined by a different process, that needs to be demonstrated. I haven't seen anything convincing, to me, as yet.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Hmm--

If this concerns a religion in and of itself, then possibly yes. When it comes to religiosity, dogmatism, and faith, I would have to say no. There are for example some liberal Christians who consider themselves non-religious, focus on the moral and spiritual aspects, and are just as critical of religious abuses as atheists are. Skepticism is about doubting, questioning, and thinking as a means of seeking the truth, and there is no reason why one who belongs to a particular religion can't do this. People like this however are quite rare.

 

[Steven Howard]

No offense to anybody who posted, but I was sort of hoping to hear from somebody who was actually in the situation I described. Maybe there really isn't anybody like that reading the forum today, or maybe they're all tired of threads like this.

Oh well, I thought it was an interesting question.

 

[linusrichard]

There's nothing wrong with applying skepticism/rationality/critical thinking to most areas of your life, and then refusing to apply it to your God-belief. As long as you're not advocating skepticism-in-all-things, there's no inconsistency. If you advocate skepticism-in-all-things, then yes, it's incoherent to also advocate a theistic religion.

 

[m_huber]

I started being a skeptic when I did a detailed study of Roswell for a Sophomore project in college. I gave up believing in psychics and ghosts a little while after that. It was over two years later that I really gave up belief in God, and I still regularly attend church because I like interacting with the people there and I like the ceremonial aspects.

It was late in the process when I joined this forum, but I think that this forum is so polarizing that it would have actually had a negative impact on my skepticism of God if I had come here earlier. Look at users like Radrook, Tai Chi, or Edge who frequent this forum -- they clearly believe in God, yet still claim some form of skepticism.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

No offense to anybody who posted, but I was sort of hoping to hear from somebody who was actually in the situation I described. Maybe there really isn't anybody like that reading the forum today, or maybe they're all tired of threads like this.

Oh well, I thought it was an interesting question.

Most of the rational believers who self-identify as skeptics get chased out of here pretty quickly if they focus on religion. Those that have stuck around side-step the subject and focus on other areas.

I'm surprised you'd think they'd willingly join this thread when they (at least those that have been around) know they'd be called stupid, woo and not a real skeptic.

 

[Mobyseven]

It was late in the process when I joined this forum, but I think that this forum is so polarizing that it would have actually had a negative impact on my skepticism of God if I had come here earlier. Look at users like Radrook, Tai Chi, or Edge who frequent this forum -- they clearly believe in God, yet still claim some form of skepticism.

Tai Chi is a young earth creationist (though he rarely admits to it). He can claim skepticism all he wants, but then again so can Sylvia Browne. Doesn't mean that she's actually applying anything even close to skepticism.

 

[MG1962]

I dont think it is that hard to be skeptical and have faith at the same time. I often question my faith and my religion, on the other hand I dont berate others for not having my belief system, nor do I worry about challenging agnostics or athiests, we each walk our path as we best see it

In terms of UFOS and many of the other things to be skeptical about, they rely on trying to establish physical evidence, and forces of nature to fit in these particular things existence

Faith on the other hand is a highly personal thing. I know God exists, but I also know I will never be able to prove that? Why, well how do you prove a feeling or a sense of self. Even here a sense of skeptism can be of value. Because someone tells me the Shroud Of Turin is real, or events at Fatima occured as described for the reasons attributed them, means nothing to me.

In both instances my own investigations lead me to understanding of these things. One I am satisfied is not real, one I am satisfied something really did happen. So on one hand my faith was justified, on the other my skeptism was rewarded

 

[blobru]

As a recent convert to the one true faith and increasingly active proselytizer for same I now know it is indeed possible to advocate religion and skepticism.

"What is this one true faith you speak of?" you ask.

"As if you didn't know," I answer, giggling girlishly and toying with my flowing auburn hair.

The one true faith is called "Blism".

What is Blism? It is the belief that God doesn't want us to believe in him. Certainly not to worship him, RuleX that, what do you take God for anyway, some kind of eternally insecure glory hog? What kind of a "God" would that be, and how big of an idiot would you have to be to believe in Him? Safe to say that "God" makes no sense and could no more exist than a square circle.

No, to borrow a trope from Groucho: "The only kind of God worth believing in is one who doesn't want to be believed in."

And that's just the kind of God you get with Blism. Yes folks, Blism^TM, guaranteed to make all those other so-called belief systems wonder why they even bother. Recommended by 4 out of 5 soteriologists in a recent taste test, Blism has been found to provide all the advantages of religion (like going to heaven) without all the stress and aggravation of having to suck up to "God" all the time. You see my friends, in Blism, only those who don't believe in Heaven go to Heaven. All others go to the Hell they believed those who didn't believe in the Heaven they believed in would go to for not believing.

"Surely you jest," say you.

"Me jest?" say I, "never... and quit calling me Hugh."

"But how can one believe in a God who doesn't want to be believed in? Wouldn't your belief be against Its wishes?"

O ye of little imagination, it's really not that difficult. Like any other "religion", Blism begins with non-belief in everything but itself. Thus, the 99.99% of religions that aren't Blism, those that pretend to know things about God and spread all sorts of ridiculous lies about what God's like and how He talks to them, how many kids He has, bowling handicap, favorite Monkee, etc., are rejected as flaming horsepoop. This makes God happy. Now, the .01% of space leftover in your religious lobe you simply fill in with Blism! Statistically, you're still a 99.99% non-believer in "God", so you haven't broken any rules, or pissed off you know Hugh... who... whom.

So, with all due skepticism, I say, join us today won't you, in the one true faith that isn't.

P.S. In keeping with Blist tradition, Blisters will be observing the birth of a certain "virgin" and holy spirit's (let me get this straight: Mom's a virgin and Dad's a ghost!? ok...) love child with the usual lack of observance this Tuesday, aside from doing whatever they want with whomever they want for a good time all round. Xmas blistings, everyone!

 

[El Greco]

Personally I don't have a probelm accepting that someone can be a skeptic with some things and a blind believer with others. What I find awkward to say the least, is when equally irrational beliefs are arbitrarily being assigned different degrees of "skeptic compatibility". Is homeopathy, clairvoyance or belief in ghosts less compatible with skepticism than religiosity ? No, sorry. It isn't.

 

[molly]

I've just been reading Sagan again. I liked what he said on pg 300 of Demon-Haunted World:

And yet, the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them--the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does not get the message across. It condemns the skeptics to permanent minority status[.]

 

[articulett]

I've just been reading Sagan again. I liked what he said on pg 300 of Demon-Haunted World:

But the problem for all skeptics is that once people understand that you don't believe in whatever they believe... they automatically here the implication that you think they are foolish or hopeless etc. The reason they think this is because that is the way they feel about those who believe things they think of as woo. They can't hear that you don't believe in their beliefs without feeling defensive because they understand that your dismissal of their beliefs carries the same connotation of their dismissal of Greek Mythology or Scientology. Faith relies on this "feeling offended" as opposed to examining the evidence. There's this underlying meme that "faith is good" or ennobling-- not subject to scrutiny. That's a notion that needs to be challenged or ridiculed or questioned to even begin a conversation on the topic.