Is this woman a friend or enemy?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who is applying the double standard to whose beliefs? It seems to me that you are talking about ‘coddling’ as something that theistic skeptics do to themselves. Is this correct? Because I don’t usually think of coddling as something one does for oneself. Or are you talking about ‘coddling’ as something that you might do to a theistic skeptic? In which case, what is the ‘double standard’ that you feel is being used?

Skeptics coddle themselves? Of course not. Skeptics coddle theists beliefs when skeptics don't apply the same critical thinking concepts to all god beliefs. Theist skeptics use a double standard if/when they don't apply the same critical thinking to their god belief which they apply to other god beliefs.

I don’t see anyone telling anyone else to refrain from applying skeptical principles to god beliefs. Who do you think is doing that? What did they say to give you that impression?

I started another thread where the OP answers this question. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, gods are mythical beings

Because this is the R&P forum. The argument about whether or not a person can be a skeptic and not accept that global warming is occurring happens in the SMM&T forum.

The point was the analogy in that some in the skeptical community treat the god question differently, it wasn't about discussing global warming.

But in post 67, you said that
This seems a direct contradiction. Is consciously applying a double standard hypocritical or not?

No, because one in that case is not pretending to apply critical thinking skills to one's god beliefs.

You really are making too much of the word, hypocrite. You should consider the more important matter of standing by one's principles and applying one's beliefs consistently. The principle of criticizing homeopathy while not criticizing one's own woo belief is a problem.

If you address the fact you are talking about the specific harm of homeopathy rather than the harm of poor critical thinking, then you can better justify your double standard. I'm concerned with the critical thinking process, itself, not necessarily the specific harm of religion [X] or homeopathy in the UK NHS.

And yet, you seem to judge whether or not someone has been skeptical by the conclusions they have reached, not by the process they employed to arrive at that conclusion.

You are rationalizing to make your own position seem more reasonable. You ignored what I posted about the reliability of beliefs based on one's imaginary experiences. You insist this is valid evidence despite admitting it isn't 'scientific evidence'.

The issue here is not, my judging people. The issue is our disagreement on what is evidence.

You didn’t answer the question. Is NOMA an apology or rationalization, or does it describe why some skeptics have decided to apply a different standard to the question of god versus the question of homeopathy?

It's all three of those things. I am well aware not everyone sees NOMa, etc., the way I do. I'm comfortable with that. And I'm comfortable the skeptic and scientific communities will eventually move toward my position, not the other way around.

What principle is that? Are different standards never appropriate for different types of things? Of course they are. It seem to me that you simply disagree with the use of different standards for the question of belief in god versus belief in homeopathy. From my point of view, belief in god is significantly different from belief in homeopathy and thus, it’s perfectly appropriate to have different standards in judging the likelihood that they are accurate descriptions of reality as I experience it.

How about a belief in a known mythical god vs belief in some present day god people don't recognize as the same? How do you compare those two beliefs? Please don't sidetrack your answer.

I would judge the possibility that god exists by the same type of standard I would apply to judge the possibility that justice exists, whereas I would judge the possibility that homeopathy works by the same type of standard I would apply to judge the possibility that aspirin works.

The way I see the evidence, justice is a concept best explained by looking at the evolution of morality. One finds that some great apes demonstrate a sense of fairness. It is a biological function of the brain. It is not some magical inexplicable thing we develop when pixie dust is sprinkled in the eyes of a newborn.

Actually, I’m trying to challenge the idea you have that your conclusion regarding the existence of god is the only possible one that any skeptically thinking person could arrive it, not your entire view of reality.

Yet you avoid addressing the evidence and the question I posed. What best explains god beliefs? People having had encounters with real gods or people making up mythical beings to explain their observations? What evidence suggests modern god beliefs differ in any way from past (or other current) mythical gods?

What other thing do you conclude might be true simply because people 'believe' it is true? When can you ever, given your position it all might be true, develop conclusions that you are comfortable represent the real Universe?

I cannot help but notice that you classify critical and rational thinkers as being a separate group from theists.

This is a straw man and I've asked you 3-4 times now to quit creating it. Critical and rational thinking is not consistent with the conclusion god(s) are real. There is no rational evidence supporting god beliefs. What is it about "the conclusion" that you keep reading as "the person"?

People are not what they are based on some cherry picked elements of their beliefs. Seriously, I shouldn't have to repeat multiple times that you are misstating my words.

This implies to me that you are judging whether or not someone has been skeptical by the conclusions they have reached, not the process they employed to arrive at that conclusion.

You and I disagree on the process. You continue to insist that believing something to be true is "evidence". When you consider that fundamental disagreement of our underlying premise of what evidence is in the equation, your conclusion about my "judging" changes to, I'm judging the process as flawed where the conclusion is based on simply believing something is true.


I'm taking another break here.

 

[Beth]

Skeptics coddle themselves? Of course not. Skeptics coddle theists beliefs when skeptics don't apply the same critical thinking concepts to all god beliefs. Theist skeptics use a double standard if/when they don't apply the same critical thinking to their god belief which they apply to other god beliefs.

So, by 'coddling' you mean, for example, a skeptical agnostic husband at TAM8 with his wife at TAM8 not actively trying to convince her to think more critically about them. Would that be an example of behavior you consider coddling?

I started another thread where the OP answers this question. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, gods are mythical beings

I saw and made a response. I wondered if you started it as an offshoot of this discussion. Just to confirm that I am understanding you correctly:

I don’t see anyone telling anyone else to refrain from applying skeptical principles to god beliefs. Who do you think is doing that? What did they say to give you that impression?

D.J. Grothe is an example of someone who is telling you not to apply skeptical principles to god beliefs and the statement

While theism — belief in god — is a supernatural claim, it is not our primary focus at the JREF. Instead, we focus on advancing critical thinking in general and skepticism about pseudoscience, the paranormal, and the supernatural in particular, especially when the supernatural beliefs are testable.

is what gave you that impression. Is this correct?

No, because one in that case is not pretending to apply critical thinking skills to one's god beliefs.

You really are making too much of the word, hypocrite. You should consider the more important matter of standing by one's principles and applying one's beliefs consistently. The principle of criticizing homeopathy while not criticizing one's own woo belief is a problem.

So, if someone has given the matter proper thought, they will come to the same skeptical conclusion that you and D.J. Groethe have. Anyone who has not come to that conclusion has not applied critical thought to the matter. It is every bit as foregone a conclusion as homeopathy and ESP. Your complaint is that people treat it as if it were as unsettled an issue as, say, whether or not it's a good idea to have universal health care as a right of every citizen. Am I understanding you correctly?

Therefore, you feel that to believe in god is every bit as inconsistent , homepathy or the conservative agenda? Am I understanding you correctly?

If you address the fact you are talking about the specific harm of homeopathy rather than the harm of poor critical thinking, then you can better justify your double standard. I'm concerned with the critical thinking process, itself, not necessarily the specific harm of religion [X] or homeopathy in the UK NHS.

Yes, well, I am concerned about that. In general, I get concerned about the specific harm that any dogmatic set of beliefs can impose.

You are rationalizing to make your own position seem more reasonable. You ignored what I posted about the reliability of beliefs based on one's imaginary experiences. You insist this is valid evidence despite admitting it isn't 'scientific evidence'.

Yes, we've discussed this in the past. I wouldn't describe it quite that way. We disagree on fundamental subjective valuations we place on certain types of evidence. We have come to different conclusions on this subject as a result.

I don't know that there is much more to discuss.

The issue here is not, my judging people. The issue is our disagreement on what is evidence.

Okay. What do you want to discuss about it.

Gotta go now. Bye.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, by 'coddling' you mean, for example, a skeptical agnostic husband at TAM8 with his wife at TAM8 not actively trying to convince her to think more critically about them. Would that be an example of behavior you consider coddling?

Not the issue. The issue is about the community apologizing for god beliefs, not about an individual keeping the peace within their household.

I saw and made a response. I wondered if you started it as an offshoot of this discussion. Just to confirm that I am understanding you correctly:
D.J. Grothe is an example of someone who is telling you not to apply skeptical principles to god beliefs and the statement is what gave you that impression. Is this correct?

DJ's Swift article is an example of apologizing for god beliefs. He's seems concerned about donations. He cites the category of 'OK god beliefs as long as they are outside the realm of science', as if there were two universes.

So, if someone has given the matter proper thought, they will come to the same skeptical conclusion that you and D.J. Groethe have. Anyone who has not come to that conclusion has not applied critical thought to the matter. It is every bit as foregone a conclusion as homeopathy and ESP. Your complaint is that people treat it as if it were as unsettled an issue as, say, whether or not it's a good idea to have universal health care as a right of every citizen. Am I understanding you correctly?

You just can't let go of this straw man, can you? Do you have an argument supporting the reason some gods are myths but there is a separate category where we ignore critical exam of other god beliefs not PC to challenge?

Therefore, you feel that to believe in god is every bit as inconsistent , homepathy or the conservative agenda? Am I understanding you correctly?

I'm comfortable I have a reasonable handle on critical thinking be it on the political reality, the medical research, and the double standard being applied to some god beliefs. But I welcome a debate based on evidence if you have any to present.

Yes, well, I am concerned about that. In general, I get concerned about the specific harm that any dogmatic set of beliefs can impose.

Do you really not have anything more than this continued straw man? This is just not like other discussions we've had. I'm hoping it is a transient situation. I've always enjoyed the fact we could disagree without this kind of petty stuff.

 

[Beth]

What principle is that? Are different standards never appropriate for different types of things? Of course they are. It seems to me that you simply disagree with the use of different standards for the question of belief in god versus belief in homeopathy. From my point of view, belief in god is significantly different from belief in homeopathy and thus, it’s perfectly appropriate to have different standards in judging the likelihood that they are accurate descriptions of reality as I experience it.

How about a belief in a known mythical god vs belief in some present day god people don't recognize as the same? How do you compare those two beliefs? Please don't sidetrack your answer.

Compare them how? In terms of judging the likelihood they are accurate descriptions of reality as I experience it? I judge that based on the details of the god belief.

Actually, I’m trying to challenge the idea you have that your conclusion regarding the existence of god is the only possible one that any skeptically thinking person could arrive it, not your entire view of reality.

Yet you avoid addressing the evidence and the question I posed.

I’m sorry, I hadn’t realized these weren’t rhetorical questions on your part. I will answer them now.

What best explains god beliefs?

I really don’t know. I know what you feel best explains it. I think you might well be correct, but I don’t have your certainty about that answer. I would have to do a considerable amount of research and study before I felt as certain as you do and frankly, I’m not interested enough to do that. I can live with not being sure about that.

People having had encounters with real gods or people making up mythical beings to explain their observations?

I think, at least in some cases, that people had real experiences that they interpreted as being an encounter with a god. I think that the experiences that turned out, in retrospect, to be pivotal for leaders of ancient tribes became part of the lore of that tribe. Some of those codified into the religions we have today.

What evidence suggests modern god beliefs differ in any way from past (or other current) mythical gods?

I don’t know enough about prehistorical civilizations to answer that question very well. My impression is that modern religions are different in actively seeking to convert others. As far as the beliefs themselves, I think some modern religions are different that previous religions in insisting on a literal interpretation of the ancient texts.

What other thing do you conclude might be true simply because people 'believe' it is true?

Nearly all of what I think is true about biology, physics, metallurgy, management and decision sciences, medicine, vaccines, world geography, etc. There is very little that I know to be true from my own personal experience.

When can you ever, given your position it all might be true, develop conclusions that you are comfortable represent the real Universe?

I’m fairly comfortable with uncertainty in that regard. It’s inherent in the scientific worldview is it not? You have to accept that knowledge generated by science could be found to be incorrect at a later date.

I cannot help but notice that you classify critical and rational thinkers as being a separate group from theists.

This is a straw man and I've asked you 3-4 times now to quit creating it. Critical and rational thinking is not consistent with the conclusion god(s) are real. There is no rational evidence supporting god beliefs. What is it about "the conclusion" that you keep reading as "the person"?

I think it has to do with the way you keep insisting that

Critical and rational thinking is not consistent with the conclusion god(s) are real.

You seem to be saying that someone who comes to a different conclusion than you on the matter has not been thinking critically and rationally about that subject.

People are not what they are based on some cherry picked elements of their beliefs. Seriously, I shouldn't have to repeat multiple times that you are misstating my words.

I am rephrasing your words in an attempt to discover if I have understood you correctly. It would be helpful if rather than complaining about the misstatement, you explained why you feel it differs significantly from what you were trying to communicate.

So, by 'coddling' you mean, for example, a skeptical agnostic husband at TAM8 with his wife at TAM8 not actively trying to convince her to think more critically about them. Would that be an example of behavior you consider coddling?

Not the issue. The issue is about the community apologizing for god beliefs, not about an individual keeping the peace within their household.

If that isn’t a good example of what you meant, could you please give an example of what you do mean by ‘coddling’ then? Because I am not clear on what you are referring to.

I saw and made a response. I wondered if you started it as an offshoot of this discussion. Just to confirm that I am understanding you correctly:
D.J. Grothe is an example of someone who is telling you not to apply skeptical principles to god beliefs and the statement is what gave you that impression. Is this correct?

DJ's Swift article is an example of apologizing for god beliefs. He's seems concerned about donations. He cites the category of 'OK god beliefs as long as they are outside the realm of science', as if there were two universes.

Okay. That isn’t a correct interpretation. Could you please explicitly state the answer to my questions. Here they are again:

I don’t see anyone telling anyone else to refrain from applying skeptical principles to god beliefs. Who do you think is doing that? What did they say to give you that impression?

So, if someone has given the matter proper thought, they will come to the same skeptical conclusion that you and D.J. Groethe have. Anyone who has not come to that conclusion has not applied critical thought to the matter. It is every bit as foregone a conclusion as homeopathy and ESP. Your complaint is that people treat it as if it were as unsettled an issue as, say, whether or not it's a good idea to have universal health care as a right of every citizen. Am I understanding you correctly?

You just can't let go of this straw man, can you? Do you have an argument supporting the reason some gods are myths but there is a separate category where we ignore critical exam of other god beliefs not PC to challenge?

I’m not trying to construct a straw man. I’m trying to understand what your position is. If your complaint is that NOT that people are treating the question of the existence of god as an unsettled question, what is they are doing that you are objecting to? Who has said that you should ignore critical examination of god beliefs not PC to challenge? Where did you get that impression?

Therefore, you feel that to believe in god is every bit as inconsistent , homepathy or the conservative agenda? Am I understanding you correctly?

I'm comfortable I have a reasonable handle on critical thinking be it on the political reality, the medical research, and the double standard being applied to some god beliefs. But I welcome a debate based on evidence if you have any to present.

You didn’t answer my question. Did I understand you correctly?

Yes, well, I am concerned about that. In general, I get concerned about the specific harm that any dogmatic set of beliefs can impose.

Do you really not have anything more than this continued straw man? This is just not like other discussions we've had. I'm hoping it is a transient situation. I've always enjoyed the fact we could disagree without this kind of petty stuff.

I’m not sure why you took offense at this statement, but I apologize.