Christian and Skeptic??

[jmercer]

If you indeed understood skepticism you'd know that we can't prove God doesn't exist; it's up to you to prove he/she/it does.

You'd also understand that your personal experiences are not evidence of any external reality.

Assuming that I was interested in making such a claim, I would indeed have to do so. I've clearly stated is that this is my personal belief, and not a fact, nor have I offered in any way to provide proof of God's existence. I've also very clearly stated that my experiences are both subjective and anecdotal, and therefore cannot be considered evidential.

So what's your problem? You're making it sound like I'm claiming I can prove God exists, when I've virtually said just the opposite.

You have no business "considering the rest of the world skeptically", then selectively turning that skepticism off because it suits you.

In your opinion, that is. Some others here seem to disagree, including myself.

This isn't fanaticism on my part; it's just hypocrisy on your part. Sorry...

I don't know... you seem pretty upset about it. Are you sure you're not being a tiny bit fanatical about this?

Regarding hypocrisy...

[/i]From Merriam-Websters Online[/i]
Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

Since I've freely admitted that my belief in God is both personal and subjective (in this thread and in others), please enlighten me as to how I'm being hypocritical by stating I can apply skepticism to all the other area's in my life.

 

[tommyz]

OK, I'm with you. Jesus was, or could have been, a real human being who modeled spiritual ideals and behavior that could benefit those who chose to follow his example. But...how about the part where he is the son of God and rose from the dead and all that stuff?

Of course that's getting a little "out there!" This is the exact reason why I haven't attented a single mass or any other religious ceremony for almost 10 years now.

Well, not quite actually...I will occasionally go just for an Easter or Christmas mass celebration, but it's NOT to "pray" in the traditional sense but rather to appreciate the aesthetics of the mass, much in the same way like visiting a museum or going to a classical concert can be a spiritually moving experience. Becoming immersed by the grand architecture of the building along the vocal talents of choir song selection is like being at a museum and classical concert at once.

I heard "believer" in there. Why are you a believer? Is it a "feeling" you have? Because I've read some biting commentary in here about believing strongly in something based solely on "feelings".

It's been once said that there are only two guarantees in life: Death and Taxes. If you avoid the latter, eventually you'll get caught and get sent to jail. So it's a choice between freedom or improsinment. Pay your taxes, and you're free; Don't and you go to jail. It's that simple.

Now, as far as the death part is concerned? I can safely say that I strongly "believe" one day I will die...I use the term "believe" loosely because there's a big difference between "believing" something to be true or to happen and actually "knowing" for certain. Until the day comes in my lifetime when the medical community discovers the miracle fountain of youth that has been scientifically PROVEN to bring about biological immortality, chances are, I'm going to die just like every other human being on the face of this earth has. And if this "miracle fountain of youth" ever will exist (and I doubt that it will) then and ONLY THEN will I have absolutely NO USE for any kind of God whatsoever.

Again, chances are this will never be, and most likely I'll die someday. Then what????

Here's a couple of questions to think about. Don't feel pressured to publicly answer them on this board; your answers are YOUR business and I'm not trying convince you or change your mind on the matter:

What happens to our concsious beings at the moment our bodies ultimately expire? Is there a continuity of our consciousness or are we simply bequethed into eternal oblivion?

If these questions have caused you any kind of sudden discomfort and uncertainty, then perhaps you can begin to understand and respect why I "believe" the way I do. The idea of spending eternity as fertilizer for a couple of patches of crabgrass and dandelions growing just above me on my grave is well...um...just depressing!

Personally I would like to think that there's something more to life than my mere physical existence here on this Earth; an afterlife of some sort whether it turns out to be with Jesus Christ, Budda, Yahweh, or even Jimi Hendrix. So "believing" in something based solely on "feelings?" Yes, I would say that's appropriate. It certainly does make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside hoping that there is indeed something more to life than this.

But then again, for skepticism and objectivity's sake, who knows? Perhaps I'll amount to nothing more than just a heaping pile of fertilizer....guess I better make an ammendment in my will to plant some beautiful rose bushes above my grave; I'll be damned if I let the ugly patches of crabgrass and dandelions get the best of me!

 

[TLN]

Assuming that I was interested in making such a claim, I would indeed have to do so. I've clearly stated is that this is my personal belief, and not a fact, nor have I offered in any way to provide proof of God's existence. I've also very clearly stated that my experiences are both subjective and anecdotal, and therefore cannot be considered evidential.

So what's your problem? You're making it sound like I'm claiming I can prove God exists, when I've virtually said just the opposite.

My problem is you said there's no evidence that God doesn't exist, a profoundly un-skeptical statement. You essentially asked us to prove a negative. You should know better.

I don't know... you seem pretty upset about it. Are you sure you're not being a tiny bit fanatical about this?

I am not the least bit upset, but it is frustrating watching a group of skeptics, who should know better, go through such extreme mental contortions to rescue a completely illogical proposition because it suits them or their friends or loved ones.

You're injecting emotion into my words that doesn't exist. I'm not sure why.

Since I've freely admitted that my belief in God is both personal and subjective (in this thread and in others), please enlighten me as to how I'm being hypocritical by stating I can apply skepticism to all the other area's in my life.

Because when you apply that skepticism to other beliefs you no doubt find them wanting due to a complete lack of supporting evidence, then turn around and embrace your own belief that has a complete lack of supporting evidence.

It's hypocritical. Belief is belief. You either have supporting evidence (in which case it's not really a belief anymore) or you don't. You don't, but you believe anyway. Hence, you're a believer.

Again, this isn't fanaticism or zealotry on my part, it's simple logic as I see it.

 

[Ashles]

TLN - do you think scientists should still be allowed to conduct reseach if they believe in God?

I mean from the way you're coming across here you make it sound like someone who, for whatever personal reasons, believes in God, is incapable of following logical thought or understanding the concept of scientific evidence.

I don't understand why you think it is impossible that someone who believes in God can analyse claims sceptically.

We all have beliefs to some extent - we have to, as being truly sceptical of everything is not a viable position to take in a real world.
It's just a quesion of degree what we believe. And if a person is not making any claim about their own personal beliefs then that's up to them.

 

[drkitten]

If skeptical inquiry can't be brought to bear on a question at all then all you have left is faith. That's fine, but it isn't skeptical.

That's a false dichotomy. Skepticism and faith can easily coexist in the case where no evidence is possible. Skepticism is a demand of how one treats evidence. Faith is a demand of how one acts when there is no evidence to treat.

Both solipsism and realism are equally compatible with science, for this reason. There is no evidence that I can provide to prove the existence of the world we consider "real" (or even the reality of "you" to make the pronoun "we" meaningful). But there's also no evidence that I can provide to disprove the existence of the world we consider "real."

Do you believe in the real world? If so, you have faith, no matter how skeptical you are. Do you disbelieve in the real world? If so, you have faith, no matter how skeptical you are.

 

[TLN]

TLN - do you think scientists should still be allowed to conduct reseach if they believe in God?

I mean from the way you're coming across here you make it sound like someone who, for whatever personal reasons, believes in God, is incapable of following logical thought or understanding the concept of scientific evidence.

Not at all. I just think it's strange that someone could follow such logical thought processes, then selectively shut it off because it suits them.

 

[TLN]

Do you believe in the real world? If so, you have faith, no matter how skeptical you are. Do you disbelieve in the real world? If so, you have faith, no matter how skeptical you are.

This is a philosophical question, not a scientific one, and I have no time for philosophy.

From Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.

"Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle -- an electron, say -- in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result."

I have no time for philosophical, unanswerable questions.

 

[tommyz]

If you indeed understood skepticism you'd know that we can't prove God doesn't exist; it's up to you to prove he/she/it does.

You'd also understand that your personal experiences are not evidence of any external reality.

There's a BIG difference between "evidence" and "proof." Proof does consistute evidence, but evidence alone is NOT proof. Here's a very simple example.

IF Bob walks forward, THEN Bob will have moved forward.

If P therefore Q.

P: Bob walks forward.
Q: Bob moved forward.

This sentence is structured in a very simple, valid argument form known as modus ponens.

This argument form has two premises. The first premise is the "if-then" or conditional claim, namely that P implies Q. The second premise is that P (Bob walks forward) the antecedent of the conditional claim, is true. From these two premises it can be logically concluded that Q (Bob moved forward) the consequent of the conditional claim, must be true as well.

But what if instead, we were to simply come across:

Q: Bob moved forward.
P: Bob walked forward (???)

Now the argument becomes invalid. While it's highly likely that Bob probably did walk forward, who's to say that he didn't jump, skip, hop, ride a bike or even drive a car to move himself forward?

Yes, this is EVIDENCE that he "walked" forward. But unless there's a videotape of him clearly showing that he HAD indeed WALKED forward, we can not PROVE that he in fact had.

 

[drkitten]

This is a philosophical question, not a scientific one, and I have no time for philosophy.

I have no time for philosophical, unanswerable questions.

That's the POINT, knothead.

The question about whether or not Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God is a philosophical (well, more accurately theological) question, not a scientific question. If you have no time for questions like that -- well, you're obviously a busy person. But that doesn't make the people who do have time for that question wrong, or "not skeptical," or hypocritical.

And the question of whether or not Jesus Christ is the Messiah is not an unanswerable question. (If it were, then why have so many people answered it?) It's simply a question that can't be answered by skepticism and science.

Here's another philosophical, unanswerable question for you : What's your favorite CD? (If you think that's answerable, then tell me how you can prove to me that your answer is correct.)

And the most important philosophical, unanswerable question : Why are you comfortable with philosophical questions about your CD preferences, but not about religion?

 

[Ashles]

Not at all. I just think it's strange that someone could follow such logical thought processes, then selectively shut it off because it suits them.

Welcome to the world of psychology.
It does indeed seem odd. And it happens all the time with everyone.

You have dismissed the philosophy question above out of hand, yet it is still a belief, albeit one that is fairly untestable.

Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much.

I disagee with that. To many people a belief that there is a life after death is a source of great personal comfort.
Sure, you and I might feel it is false comfort, but it certainly plays a distinct and demonstrable role in improving many people's mental stability and sense of happiness.
It helps people to cope with grief and loss.
It helps with depression.

Now whether I personally think that is a good or bad thing is irrelevant. People believe for many reasons - it doesn't mean they can't approach other problems and issues with a completely sceptical manner.

Everyone is perfectly able to hold conflicting viewpoints at the same time - it's one of the many quirks of our minds.

 

[TLN]

And the most important philosophical, unanswerable question : Why are you comfortable with philosophical questions about your CD preferences, but not about religion?

My taste in art is an opinion.

Whether Jesus rose from the dead or not is not an opinion. He either did or he didn't.

Since there's no supporting evidence, we don't know. Therefore, if you want to be of the position that he did then you're exercising faith. And again, that's fine, but it's just not skeptical.

 

[TLN]

There's a BIG difference between "evidence" and "proof." Proof does consistute evidence, but evidence alone is NOT proof. Here's a very simple example.

I'm well aware of the difference. I so far have only said there's no evidence for the resurrection, not that there's no proof.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

jmercer -- As far as I'm concerned, no one's produced any conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist... and I have to balance that against my own personal experiences that He does, in fact, exist. Therefore, I remain a Christian, and a believer in God.

This of course still leaves me free to consider the rest of the world skeptically, and draw my conclusions from the evidence available as a skeptic.

mayday or Janice might have paraphrased you:

"As far as I'm concerned, no one's produced any conclusive evidence that premonitions don't exist... and I have to balance that against my own personal experiences that Premonitions do, in fact, happen."

Or, insert "ghosts", or "homeopathy", "communication with the dead" for "god" to see the inconsistency.

Is it not just that your god is "socially acceptable" in your current community?

No offense meant. I know how attractive religion can be.

 

[rppa]

My taste in art is an opinion. Whether Jesus rose from the dead or not is not an opinion.

Really? So which is it? You can settle a lot of argument since you seem privy to the truth value on this question.

Since there's no supporting evidence, we don't know. Therefore, if you want to be of the position that he did then you're exercising faith.

And what if you want to be of the opinion that you think he did, but lacking evidence, you can't say for sure?

And again, that's fine, but it's just not skeptical.

"Skepticism" doesn't mean "the default belief on all hypotheses is FALSE".

 

[TLN]

Really? So which is it? You can settle a lot of argument since you seem privy to the truth value on this question.

I am? Perhaps you missed the part of my last post in which I said "we don't know".

"Skepticism" doesn't mean "the default belief on all hypotheses is FALSE".

Strawman: I never claimed this was skepticism.

I simply think that in the absence of any supporting evidence what you have left is not skepticism but faith.

 

[drkitten]

I simply think that in the absence of any supporting evidence what you have left is not skepticism but faith.

And what's your problem with this?

 

[rppa]

mayday or Janice might have paraphrased you:

"As far as I'm concerned, no one's produced any conclusive evidence that premonitions don't exist... and I have to balance that against my own personal experiences that Premonitions do, in fact, happen.

Or, insert "ghosts", or "homeopathy", "communication with the dead" for god to see the inconsistency."

Is it not just that your god is "socially acceptable" in your current community?

No offense meant. I know how attractive religion can be.

I don't see the inconsistency. With those other things, not only are we dealing with mechanisms that violate known science (for which there is ample experimental evidence) but direct experimental tests against a competing null hypothesis have failed.

With religious hypotheses, the nature of the questions and the hypotheses is inherently untestable and of course unfalsifiable. One may find it inconsistent that a person who likes science (the world of the falsifiable hypothesis) could still hold unfalsifiable beliefs. But there is no inconsistency in world view.

You can't just "insert the words". It's not a valid substitution. The nature of woo-woo is belief in the face of evidence against it.

Speaking only for myself, I don't hold the type of religious views which are incompatible with science. For me, religion deals with questions for which there is simply no evidence for or against a religious hypothesis, nor do I actually believe any evidence could ever be obtained IN EITHER DIRECTION. Occam has nothing to say on the subject. There is no grounds on which to choose the non-religious vs. the religious hypothesis.

Skepticism would mean that if I were proven wrong, if there were evidence pro or con, I'd have to go with the evidence.

 

[TLN]

And what's your problem with this?

None. If you want to have faith, knock yourself out. It's just not skeptical.

 

[TLN]

I don't see the inconsistency. With those other things, not only are we dealing with mechanisms that violate known science...

You mean like getting up after being dead for three days?

 

[Neutiquam Erro]

Why would we discount the resurrection? It's the core of Christianity.

There's no supporting evidence for any of the claims of Christianity. It's that simple.

If skeptical inquiry can't be brought to bear on a question at all then all you have left is faith. That's fine, but it isn't skeptical.

I understood him to mean that the doctrine of Jesus' resurrection asserts empirical truth, unlike the other Christian beliefs he mentioned. That is, it asserts observable events (an individual human being was dead, and then was alive again), whereas the claim of Jesus' divinity cannot be so determined.