question re skeptics

[DevilsAdvocate]

Hi there, I'm wondering about skeptics in general - are you all atheists? Is it possible to be a skeptic and beleive in a soul? Do you have to beleive in God to beleive in a soul (guess that one's not really pertinent to skepticism).

I'm a skeptic. The problem I have with God or a soul is defining exactly what they are. I can’t believe or disbelieve in something unless I know what it is.

What is God? What does God do? How does God work? What are the effects of God? Can God or the effects of God be measured?

What is a soul? What does a soul do? How does a soul work? What are the effects of a soul? Can a soul or the effects of a soul be measured?

I can’t find any answers for these questions. I’ll provide my own explanations:

A god is a convenient explanation for something you cannot immediately explain.

A soul is an experience of the body. Actually it is an artificial separation of the experience of the body from the body itself. When you lose the body, you also lose the “experience of the body”, which means you also lose the soul. It’s like if you have a green cube. I destroy the cube. So, where did the “green” go? It went with the cube.

No God. No soul. Sorry, that was just made-up stuff. Sort of like many common urban legends.

 

[Dancing David]

Love is a vague term applied to a complex set of interactions.

many people associate love with pain and suffering.

Define love, and then we can play with the shadow puppets on the wall.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Everybody is sceptical about something:

I suspect pretty well every Christian is sceptical about Muhammed's writings on Allah. Everybody who is not a member of the LDS would probably be sceptical about Joseph Smith receiving gold tablets from Moroni, and the accounts in the Book of Mormon.

YECs, are sceptical (or should that be ignorant?) about evolution, and certainly have to, by definition, be sceptical of Von Daniken's claims of "ancient astronauts".

Most non Roman Catholics are sceptical of the idea of the Virgin Mary popping up in Grottos, statues, trees, clouds......

I suppose this list could go on forever, since, there must be around 6 billion people who are sceptical of something.

Norm

These are not good examples of skepticism. A Mormon's rejection of the Koran has to do with their faith and not evidence.

A Young Earth Creationist's rejection of evolution is not based on evidence, but on "revealed" truth--sort of the antithesis of skepticism.

Gr8wight's answers have been very good.

I do think that skeptics who accept any religious matters on faith are skeptics with a blind spot. They are not exercising skepticism in those matters. (Sort of like Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria--an idea I don't buy since pretty much everything in science was once the realm of faith.)

If they apply skepticism in all other matters, I suppose you can still call them skeptics, but I'd use caution. Every religionist could do the same--it's nothing more than saying "My beliefs don't require evidence, but I can reject all other beliefs for lack of evidence."

 

[Gr8wight]

Great post!

Gr8wight:
Nice write-up thanks for the post... this is going in my bookmarks for people who ask the "whatzaskeptic" question.

Gr8wight's answers have been very good.

Thanks all for the praise.

 

[panchov]

Love is a vague term applied to a complex set of interactions.

many people associate love with pain and suffering.

Define love, and then we can play with the shadow puppets on the wall.

Define love - what do you mean when you say to your husband, wife, son, daughter, dog, cat, teacher, boss - "I love you."??

It's easy to say that love has proof because it causes changes in our brain, but that's not really cause and effect, a lot of things cause changes in our brain We have predictable reactions sure, but that's not proof! You guys keep saying over and over proof has to be scientifically done or its not proof. It could also be argued that haunted houses predictably have cold spots therefore hauntings are real.

I'm just being devil's advocate. But where's the scientific proof?

Or is that love is just what Darwin said it was, an illusion that biology perpetrates on us to propagate the species. (I think he said that, maybe I just made it up though).

 

[qayak]

. . . just if there's some for the most part standard belief pattern on the part of skeptics.

A skeptic believes something because a study of the evidence suggests it to be true.

The limits of a skeptic are: availability of evidence, accuracy of evidence, the desire to actively take the time to find and examine the evidence, and commitment to understanding what the evidence means.

Being a skeptic can be hard work.

 

[slingblade]

Define love - what do you mean when you say to your husband, wife, son, daughter, dog, cat, teacher, boss - "I love you."??

It's easy to say that love has proof because it causes changes in our brain, but that's not really cause and effect, a lot of things cause changes in our brain We have predictable reactions sure, but that's not proof! You guys keep saying over and over proof has to be scientifically done or its not proof. It could also be argued that haunted houses predictably have cold spots therefore hauntings are real.

I'm just being devil's advocate. But where's the scientific proof?

Or is that love is just what Darwin said it was, an illusion that biology perpetrates on us to propagate the species. (I think he said that, maybe I just made it up though).

Are we claiming love is a being who can interact with the observable universe?

 

[Hokulele]

Define love - what do you mean when you say to your husband, wife, son, daughter, dog, cat, teacher, boss - "I love you."??

It's easy to say that love has proof because it causes changes in our brain, but that's not really cause and effect, a lot of things cause changes in our brain We have predictable reactions sure, but that's not proof! You guys keep saying over and over proof has to be scientifically done or its not proof. It could also be argued that haunted houses predictably have cold spots therefore hauntings are real.

I'm just being devil's advocate. But where's the scientific proof?

Or is that love is just what Darwin said it was, an illusion that biology perpetrates on us to propagate the species. (I think he said that, maybe I just made it up though).

You could easily define love to be those specific changes observed in the brain. Why not? It covers pretty much any outward display. BTW, you might want to be clearer on the type of love you are describing, for example, eros, filios, or agape. After all, love could be what I feel for the first cup of tea in the morning.

Your haunted house analogy isn't very good in this case, as the cold spots could have many other causes. Unless you want to define "haunted" as "drafty".

 

[TuftedPuffin]

Define love - what do you mean when you say to your husband, wife, son, daughter, dog, cat, teacher, boss - "I love you."??

It's easy to say that love has proof because it causes changes in our brain, but that's not really cause and effect, a lot of things cause changes in our brain We have predictable reactions sure, but that's not proof! You guys keep saying over and over proof has to be scientifically done or its not proof. It could also be argued that haunted houses predictably have cold spots therefore hauntings are real.

I'm just being devil's advocate. But where's the scientific proof?

Or is that love is just what Darwin said it was, an illusion that biology perpetrates on us to propagate the species. (I think he said that, maybe I just made it up though).

First of all, no idea if Darwin said that, but that is pretty much the consensus. We are creatures that can fall in love because creatures that fall in love propagate more. Specifically, we are creatures that act in a specific set of ways based on a specific set of chemical and behavioral stimuli put under the word "love".

So you define love as what you mean when you tell someone you love them, then it's pretty dang proven right there. People feel something, they say they feel it, pretty much everyone's experienced it....that's already scientific proof on the same level that we can be scientifically assured that we can see. The chemicals, etc., that's the why of love, but the "does it exist?" of love is much, much simpler, at least for your definition.

 

[jimtron]

The existence of love can't exactly be proven, because there's not a consensus (afaik) on precisely what it is. I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that there is an idea or emotion or whatever called love, just as there surely exists something called art which is also subjective and impossible to specifically define.

On the other hand, as has been pointed out, there are measurable responses to "love." I would think that there are measurable physiological changes in a person when a photograph of someone they love very deeply is shown to them.

But let's go back to the first mention of love in this thread:

So now, you don't have to answer this on a personal level, otherwise we're likely to start a year long debate..but how do skeptics believe in love since it can't be proven? Or is it common among skeptics to not believe in love?

A common strawman I've heard about skeptics is that they "only believe/are interested in things that are testable/provable/demonstrable scientifically." I've never heard a single instance of this being true, regarding love or anything else.

 

[my_wan]

Define love - what do you mean when you say to your husband, wife, son, daughter, dog, cat, teacher, boss - "I love you."??

It's easy to say that love has proof because it causes changes in our brain, but that's not really cause and effect, a lot of things cause changes in our brain We have predictable reactions sure, but that's not proof! You guys keep saying over and over proof has to be scientifically done or its not proof. It could also be argued that haunted houses predictably have cold spots therefore hauntings are real.

I'm just being devil's advocate. But where's the scientific proof?

Or is that love is just what Darwin said it was, an illusion that biology perpetrates on us to propagate the species. (I think he said that, maybe I just made it up though).

No not proof, it has a definition that may be different for each of us. A definition does not require proof any more than what you choose to name your child.

 

[Dancing David]

Define love - what do you mean when you say to your husband, wife, son, daughter, dog, cat, teacher, boss - "I love you."??

the use of a word in common speach does not mean that is has a clear definition.

I can can give you multiple applications of the term as it is often used.

I notice you still haven't tried to define it.

It's easy to say that love has proof because it causes changes in our brain, but that's not really cause and effect, a lot of things cause changes in our brain

So you keep avoiding defining it.

We have predictable reactions sure, but that's not proof!

What reactions are those? the one where someone tries to kill another in jealousy or themselves in despiar?

You guys keep saying over and over proof has to be scientifically done or its not proof.

I take it you like to use but words but not clarify what you are talking about?

It could also be argued that haunted houses predictably have cold spots therefore hauntings are real.

You have defined haunting as a cold spot now try "love".

I'm just being devil's advocate. But where's the scientific proof?

Whatever.

Or is that love is just what Darwin said it was, an illusion that biology perpetrates on us to propagate the species. (I think he said that, maybe I just made it up though).

 

[fishbob]

. . . . . just if there's some for the most part standard belief pattern on the part of skeptics.

Standard? No.