Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[drzeus99]

This has always bothered me. People claiming to be skeptics who hold out in their belief in god.

I postulate that someone can't be a skeptic and have any true belief in any god(s).

To me, being a skeptic means formulating opinions and thoughts based on critical and rational thinking, logic, facts, common sense...all unbiasedly and with complete openess and honesty.

If people apply that definition to skepticism, it seems impossible to truthfully come to any true belief in any god(s) since doing that would violate what being a skeptic is, because if they did, they couldn't come to the conclusion that any god(s) exist.

Any thoughts?

Cheers
DrZ

 

[JoeEllison]

I have met people who admit that their religious faith is not based on logic, reason, or evidence. In that case, based on that level of intellectual honesty, I can accept that those people are capable of general skepticism.

 

[-Fran-]

I think this is maybe a bit of a controversial question around here?

Personally though, I agree with you. I can't make it go together...

 

[drzeus99]

I have met people who admit that their religious faith is not based on logic, reason, or evidence. In that case, based on that level of intellectual honesty, I can accept that those people are capable of general skepticism.

General skeptism? Hmm..maybe, but only if it doesn't concern religion, huh?

Kinda weak reasoning on their side, I'd think.

Why they wouldn't apply the same skeptical criteria towards religion as they do other things just really gets my goat (and my goat is all shiny and new..)


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It's entirely possible to be a religious skeptic.

It just requires evidence for the validity of religious claims, and there's the rub.

 

[jimtron]

As Joe pointed out, some people believe in god knowing full well that there is no empirical evidence. I see nothing wrong with that. I do have an issue with people who argue that they believe in god based on evidence.

 

[Vim Razz]

Short answer: No.

Valid skepticism about the particular validity of any claim or belief should not be confused with the kind of hyper-rational Empirical Puritanism prostletized by many hardline atheists.

Now, if someone claimed to have proof of God, then there might be reason to carefully consider their claim to skepticism. Belief in God or gods, however, is not relevant to the question of skeptical integrity.

 

[JoeEllison]

General skeptism? Hmm..maybe, but only if it doesn't concern religion, huh?

Kinda weak reasoning on their side, I'd think.

It is the same sort of reasoning on MY part as if I went to a mechanic to get my engine worked on, and he told me that he didn't touch brakes. His unwillingness to apply his efforts towards brakes doesn't diminish his ability to work on engines.

 

[-Fran-]

As Joe pointed out, some people believe in god knowing full well that there is no empirical evidence. I see nothing wrong with that. I do have an issue with people who argue that they believe in god based on evidence.

I usually don't have an issue with that either. However, it does strike me as a bit... odd when those same people argue against woo, and try to convince other people that their non-evidence based beliefs are wrong. Why argue with people who believe in astrology and psychics for example, in an effort to make them see that their beliefs are unsubstanciated and their "evidence" flawed... when you have such a belief yourself? So, for me it is not so much about if they admit that their belief is not based on evidence, or not... but if they have issues with other beliefs or not

I sometimes see that here on the forum, and it doesn't go together in my head, how you can be an active skeptic (as in actively arguing against woo) and at the same time be, for example, a Christian. I'm not saying that they don't do a lot of good here, and that I don't respect them as persons. I just don't quite understand it.

ETA
Just to clarify a bit. I am not saying that if you are, for example, a Christian, that you shouldn't argue against, for example, a belief in psychics. I think some with Christian beliefs around here does so very well. I just mean that for me personally, I would not be able to make that go together in my own mind, and what I don't quite understand is how it goes together in their minds. That's all.

 

[GreNME]

I tend to stick to the conclusion that intellectual honesty leads to a general agnosticism on the count of religion. There are too many absolutes involved in religion that cannot be verified by measurable means, and alternatively an exercise in proving a negative (being a logical fallacy) is an unnecessary waste of energy.

But let's all be honest: our answers are going to irrevocably be influenced by our own personal conclusions on this question.

 

[JoeEllison]

I sometimes see that here on the forum, and it doesn't go together in my head, how you can be an active skeptic (as in actively arguing against woo) and at the same time be, for example, a Christian. I'm not saying that they don't do a lot of good here, and that I don't respect them as persons. I just don't quite understand it.

I think it comes down to a difference between the sort of faith that presents as "it makes me feel better, so I believe it, but I don't depend on it to help me make choices in my life" and "it is absolute truth, and the basis for all of my decisions."

I guess it is a more agnostic version of religion that can allow someone to be skeptical of other woo stuff.

 

[GreNME]

Most religious people aren't fundies.

 

[-Fran-]

I think it comes down to a difference between the sort of faith that presents as "it makes me feel better, so I believe it, but I don't depend on it to help me make choices in my life" and "it is absolute truth, and the basis for all of my decisions."

I guess it is a more agnostic version of religion that can allow someone to be skeptical of other woo stuff.

Could be, yes. Obviously some people manage to make it go together, somehow, and as I said, it's not like I have a problem with them. But it has, many times, struck me as odd.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

I can't imagine how a pure skeptic could be anything but an atheist. That said, I'm skeptical to the idea that "pure skeptics" even exist. A theists may not be skeptical of all deities, but I wouldn't say that that alone should prevent him/her from being considered generally skeptical.

 

[Evil Roy Slade]

Rather than solve the problem posed by the OP perhaps we could just eliminate it by electing a god for atheists to honour!

I hereby nominate Ma'at, Egyptian goddess of Truth, Balance, Order.


Yeah! Go Ma'at!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes (to the OP question)

I know it is not the view of everyone, especially since it doesn't help convert the non-skeptics, but I see no rational way to put one set of god beliefs in a special category.

 

[GreNME]

To those who say 'yes': why? Or the longer version: why do you think that atheism is a better fit for a skeptic than a general agnosticism? Is there an inherent value that being atheist in approach has over being agnostic in approach for the hypothetical skeptic?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

To those who say 'yes': why? Or the longer version: why do you think that atheism is a better fit for a skeptic than a general agnosticism? Is there an inherent value that being atheist in approach has over being agnostic in approach for the hypothetical skeptic?

It is as foolish to be agnostic about religion as it is to be agnostic about dowsing, astrology, and the Easter bunny, and for the same reasons.

 

[saizai]

There are theistic agnostics.

I find making a distinction between 'belief' and 'knowledge' a bit strange, but eh, it happens.

I know a couple people I'd call intelligent skeptics, who nevertheless find magical worldviews to be useful; they acknowledge that these worldviews are not necessarily grounded in logic so much as feeling/intuition. For them, this is functional; the magical worldview is pleasant, gives things a certain amount of vibrancy, and (given the skeptical limits) doesn't interfere with their day-to-day life in any way. (These people aren't, for example, what I'd call 'superstitious' or the like.)

So I'd say it's quite possible to be skeptical and a non-atheist. Try not to assume that everyone who thinks critically necessarily comes to the same conclusions (or worldviews) as you do; that's a very poisonous assumption to make.


ImaginalDisc - Dowsing and astrology are testable, have been tested, and have shown no results. Therefore it is rational to conclude that they are false, or that their effect power is smaller than that measurable by the tests done. Not all theisms are testable, though, and one has to be agnostic about that which is unfalsifiable. That means basically you ignore both the possibility of it being true and it being false.

 

[Georg]

To those who say 'yes': why? Or the longer version: why do you think that atheism is a better fit for a skeptic than a general agnosticism? Is there an inherent value that being atheist in approach has over being agnostic in approach for the hypothetical skeptic?

I do not understand the question since you can easily be agnostic and atheist. There is no contradiction. Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism with knowledge. I lack a belief in god(s), therefore I´m an atheist. Do I know for sure, like 100%, that there are no gods? No, I don´t and I don´t claim that, therefore I am an agnostic. That makes me an agnostic atheist, and after reading hundreds of posts regarding that topic on this forum, I´d say a lot of skeptics here would fall in that category.