Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[NeilC]

Do you do your reasoning with a dictionary? I'm really curious.

I'm curious about that, too. If someone IS religious, has faith that they take seriously, then I consider the entire "faith and opinion are the same thing" to be at best incredibly weak, and at most blatantly dishonest.

No but I do like to know what I'm reasoning about. You are the one with the problem with Bri's definitions. It would help if you'd define them precisely and pointed out how the differences in definitions are important.

Please define faith and opinion.

 

[NeilC]

No, but we know that a planet with a similar composition might do.

Or might not, depending on how specific those conditions need to be and how rare they are, and how likely intelligence is as an evolutionary gambit etc - it's taken billions of years for it to happen here.

 

[Bri]

It is awfully precious of you to post dictionary definitions.

Oh, please! Aren't you the one who suggested that I "stretched the definition of 'opinion' past the breaking point?" How else would you suggest I respond to that sort of a comment?

It doesn't change the fact that you are using the terms interchangeably, which means that you are using them incorrectly. "Opinion" and "faith" are NOT the same thing, and the claim otherwise is, intentionally or not, an incorrect way of framing the discussion. Once you've made the terms meaningless, you can make any claim you want, can't you?

I never claimed that they were the same thing. I said that a belief based on faith, like an opinion, is a belief without proof.

Are you religious, BTW? Do you have a religious faith? If so, why are you so eager to trivialize it in order to score a dubious rhetorical point?

I'm not certain what my beliefs have to do with the discussion nor how asking for a definition of "skepticism" that supports an opinion that belief in God is by definition not skeptical (per the topic of the thread) trivializes religious faith. But to answer your question, I'm agnostic concerning the existence of God -- I don't know for certain whether or not God exists.

-Bri

 

[JoeEllison]

No but I do like to know what I'm reasoning about. You are the one with the problem with Bri's definitions. It would help if you'd define them precisely and pointed out how the differences in definitions are important.

Please define faith and opinion.

Since dictionaries are the means through which you view the universe, you might be interested to know that the same dictionary that Bri used, actually goes out of its way to differentiate between the terms(note also that Bri cherry-picked the definitions to suit his point.)

belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>.

opinion implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute <each expert seemed to have a different opinion>

Opinion is listed as a "see in addition", but not as a direct synonym of "belief", and not listed at all under "faith". Different words, with different meanings.

 

[JoeEllison]

But to answer your question, I'm agnostic concerning the existence of God -- I don't know for certain whether or not God exists.

-Bri

That actually makes more sense to me... your level of faith is rather trivial, and your definition of the words "faith" and "belief" seem to match.

 

[NeilC]

Since dictionaries are the means through which you view the universe

And that I'm afraid, for me, ends the point in continuing discussing this with you.

 

[JoeEllison]

And that I'm afraid, for me, ends the point in continuing discussing this with you.

Thank goodness! I though you'd start quoting a thesaurus at me next!

 

[Bri]

Since dictionaries are the means through which you view the universe, you might be interested to know that the same dictionary that Bri used, actually goes out of its way to differentiate between the terms(note also that Bri cherry-picked the definitions to suit his point.)

...

Opinion is listed as a "see in addition", but not as a direct synonym of "belief", and not listed at all under "faith". Different words, with different meanings.

I don't recall saying that "opinion" is a synonym of "belief" if that's what you're implying. Opinion and faith are categories of belief that differ from belief based on fact. That's the only similarity I've drawn between opinion and faith (that neither is claimed to be fact).

That actually makes more sense to me... your level of faith is rather trivial, and your definition of the words "faith" and "belief" seem to match.

No, faith is a type of belief. There is also belief based on fact. Opinion is similar to the former in that it isn't the latter. I don't recall ever saying that faith and opinion are the same thing, nor that faith and belief are the same thing, nor that opinion and belief are the same thing.

-Bri

 

[Stone Island]

Following Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, a skeptic should neither confirm nor deny the existence of God or gods. Metaphysical claims re: religion, whether for or against, positive or negative, lack truth value. In other words, an atheist and a theist are both making absurd claims.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Number of gods for which there is evidence: 0

Number of intelligent species for which there is evidence: 1

Reasons to believe we live in a special part of the universe at a special time: 0

Pointing out to someone that their analogy is flawed: Priceless

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Following Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, a skeptic should neither confirm nor deny the existence of God or gods. Metaphysical claims re: religion, whether for or against, positive or negative, lack truth value. In other words, an atheist and a theist are both making absurd claims.

Another person who ignores the entire thread. We know that part. No one is arguing against not proving the negative, nor against always being open to new discoveries coming along, nor against science's limited ability to test things not part of the natural Universe.

My argument is the definition of a god in your example was made up to fit the 'can't be tested' principle. It is not the real definition of gods as used by the population prior to the skeptic/scientists who made it up.

 

[Stone Island]

Another person who ignores the entire thread. We know that part. No one is arguing against not proving the negative, nor against always being open to new discoveries coming along, nor against science's limited ability to test things not part of the natural Universe.

My argument is the definition of a god in your example was made up to fit the 'can't be tested' principle. It is not the real definition of gods as used by the population prior to the skeptic/scientists who made it up.

I don't think you've read Martin's book. If you did, you didn't read it very carefully.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Explain how you can tell that Hal lies.

And herein lies your problem. If you allow yourself to think about what I am actually saying, you have to call your friends liars. FYI, it's denial, that's a different version of lying. There is no intent to deceive so at least get that part right.

..You don't need to wait for Georg's reply. I'm not asking Georg. I'm asking you. Answer the question.

I did. You just don't like the answer.

You admit that this is your opinion, yet you point your fingers at others and call them unskeptical?

No, I said they were unskeptical in one belief. That's not the same as unskeptical in general.

Since when did your opinion constitute skepticism?

Since I supported it with reason and facts.

But that is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about when people don't need evidence. We are talking about when they say they don't have evidence.

No, that is what you are talking about. I've explained repeatedly that I do not believe skeptics who maintain a belief in a god are basing that belief on no evidence. They did not grow up in a vacuum. They did not come to that conclusion in a vacuum. You seem to grant them magical powers to have invented a god belief entirely from within. I look at the world which is full of god myths and see by empirical evidence the skeptic was exposed to all those god myths throughout their life.

All the skeptic in your example is saying is, "I don't have to justify my belief to you." And that is correct.

If you don't believe that they meet the skeptical standards of evidence, you have to point to what the evidence is.

All empirical evidence suggests gods are human generated myths.

You are avoiding this like the plague:

What evidence is being claimed?

You have to answer this question, otherwise your criticism falls flat.

Claus, I get the fact we are not looking at this the same way. You don't seem to get that. If you would just recognize what that difference is, we could have a more productive discussion.

Is your position that by 'claiming no evidence' the 'blind spot' I refer to is vanquished?

 

[Belz...]

Or might not, depending on how specific those conditions need to be and how rare they are, and how likely intelligence is as an evolutionary gambit etc - it's taken billions of years for it to happen here.

Yes, billions of years. One planet.

Over those same years, how many OTHER planets may be suitable ? We don't know, but it's even less reasonable to conclude, for some reason, that the Earth is, somehow, a unique case.

 

[CFLarsen]

And herein lies your problem. If you allow yourself to think about what I am actually saying, you have to call your friends liars. FYI, it's denial, that's a different version of lying. There is no intent to deceive so at least get that part right.

Herein lies your problem: You don't follow your own posts. Here:

So because one doesn't have insight into their beliefs, or because one makes a claim of denial of using evidence, I must draw my conclusion based on their claims?

I think not.

1) How the heck do you know when you have "insight" into someone's beliefs?

First, I can certainly draw a conclusion based on evidence that a person is less than truthful. There may be all sorts of evidence in addition to what the person claims.

Explain how you can tell that Hal lies.

I did. You just don't like the answer.

No, you didn't answer. You just called it "without any reason". Yet, that reason you point to is evidence.

So, try again. When you say:

First, I can certainly draw a conclusion based on evidence that a person is less than truthful. There may be all sorts of evidence in addition to what the person claims.

On what evidence do you draw your conclusion in Hal's case?

No, I said they were unskeptical in one belief. That's not the same as unskeptical in general.

You have to understand that it isn't being unskeptical, if they don't claim evidence.

Since I supported it with reason and facts.

But you haven't supported it with neither reason or facts. Your "reason" is based on a false premise: That Hal claims evidence of his beliefs. Your "facts" are also wrong, for the same reason: Hal doesn't claim evidence of his beliefs.

No, that is what you are talking about. I've explained repeatedly that I do not believe skeptics who maintain a belief in a god are basing that belief on no evidence. They did not grow up in a vacuum. They did not come to that conclusion in a vacuum. You seem to grant them magical powers to have invented a god belief entirely from within. I look at the world which is full of god myths and see by empirical evidence the skeptic was exposed to all those god myths throughout their life.

Then point to the evidence that you think Hal is in denial of.

All the skeptic in your example is saying is, "I don't have to justify my belief to you." And that is correct.

But that is not what Hal says. He says that he doesn't claim to be able to justify his belief to anyone.

He isn't refusing to show evidence. He isn't in denial. He isn't claiming to have evidence at all.

All empirical evidence suggests gods are human generated myths.

No, no, no. Not the evidence that you have of gods that have been claimed to be evidential.

The evidence that Hal is in denial of.

Claus, I get the fact we are not looking at this the same way. You don't seem to get that. If you would just recognize what that difference is, we could have a more productive discussion.

Is your position that by 'claiming no evidence' the 'blind spot' I refer to is vanquished?

Answer the question: What evidence is being claimed? Yes, by Hal.

What is this evidence he is in denial of?

It's one simple question.

 

[Beth]

I agree as well. In real life people can call themselves what they want, I don't care, and who are we to stop them anyway.

I don't think too many people here disagree with this sentiment

And they certainly can do a lot of good in helping the world become a more rational place, in many areas, as far as practical things are concerned... But no matter how they twist it, a god belief is not a more realistic conclusion with this method than the dowsing example, no.

I think this is the crux of the disagreement. Belief in god or demons or intelligent life outside the solar system are different from belief in dowsing in that dowsing can be (and has been) tested empirically. We can state that insofar as we can test for the existance of dowsing ability, we have not found it not to exist. On the other hand, we cannot empirically test for the existance of god, possession by demons, or life outside our solar system, thus many skeptics seem them as different in a very fundamental way. We can subjectively estimate the probabilities of such things based on the evidence we do have available to us individually and come to conclusions about them. But because those conclusions are dependent upon subjective interpretation of non-empirical evidence, science cannot establish which conclusion is correct.

 

[NeilC]

Yes, billions of years. One planet.

Over those same years, how many OTHER planets may be suitable ? We don't know, but it's even less reasonable to conclude, for some reason, that the Earth is, somehow, a unique case.

It's hard to say because we don't know how life formed. We don't know how unlikely a circumstance it is so we can't say how likely it is. We can guess but we don't know really.

If I have to guess I'd guess that life existed elsewhere. I simply couldn't guess whether that life was intelligent (in a self-conscious, technologically similar to human sort of way). As we've seen from our planet, life can go on one hell of a long time without human-level intelligence turning up. It seems that many other evolutionary strategies are successful enough for it not to be a foregone conclusion.

The intelligent life question in this thread was used as an example of belief. My belief there is intelligent life somewhere else is not as strong as my belief there are not gods. How skeptical does that make me?

 

[articulett]

The topic was whether a skeptic should be an atheist by definition. The answer was that anyone can call themselves a skeptic and anyone can claim someone else is or isn't a skeptic, atheist, etc.

The methods of skepticism are the methods of science-- there is no room for positing the supernatural. There is no room or concluding some form of consciousness can exist absent a brain, because we have no evidence for such. We have evidence that corporeal life--life made of matter-- can evolve on planets such as ours-- and there are tons of planets. The life on our planet is made up with the same stuff found on other planets. It happened once.

When someone believes in a god they are positing the existence of an invisible, immeasurable form of consciousness. Everything we understand about consciousness requires a brain hooked up to sensory organs that give feedback. It requires matter. Anyone who believes in consciousness outside of brain-- some invisible immeasurable diety is making a conclusion not warranted by the facts--not warranted by Occam's razor...not based in skepticism.

A skeptic could believe that Uri Geller is a fraud, but that some psychics somewhere might be real... that sounds about on par with the god belief. But positing such sounds like wishful thinking to me. Anyone who believes in invisible forms of consciousness or any other entity or force or which there is no measurable evidence is not using skepticism to derive that belief. Occam doesn't lend itself to such giant leaps of faith. To me, all gods sound as unlikely as any god... just like all psychics seem as unlikely to have powers as Uri Gellar. I expect most skeptics draw similar conclusions.

Bri, I don't think you are at all as polite as you imagine yourself Why tell us how polite you are? Don't you think we can make our own assessments? Why criticize others without examining your real motives first? I think you, Clause and Beth all sound pretentious and obtuse.... you ask questions you don't want answers to and infer some air of superiority or imagined politeness some "correct definition" for skepticism, faith, and belief. It's all semantics to me-- semantics to infer that a belief in god is as rational as a lack of belief in such. The majority don't think so. The majority think that a lack of belief in gods is as logical as a lack of belief in psychics powers or a lack of belief in demons. You are rude to the posters I like. I think people have gone out of their way to tell you that the methods of skepticism don't assume facts not in evidence-- we don't fill in the blanks with supernatural explanations--not Demons, bad vibes, psychic powers or gods. They have never been shown to exist and all people who have provided anything we can test show that people are fabulously easy to fool in these areas.

So that's the definition Bri. If you have a supernatural belief-- and that includes a belief in any invisible form of consciousness--whether demons, souls, ghosts, or gods-- you have a belief not based on evidence, logic, or skepticism. You have a belief you have hidden from skeptical inquiry. Why a skeptic wants to hide some beliefs from skeptical inquiry while using sound logic to dismantle others is something that I find bizarre... but understandable. People are afraid to be wrong... and afraid to "lose faith". The majority of definitions of skepticism say that anyone who uses the method can call themselves a skeptic (I posted links to the scientific method and Carl Sagan's baloney detection as well as logical fallacies.). You appear to want to use the method or call yourself a skeptic, but you don't want gods subject to inquiry.

I think most skeptics treat gods like they treat psychic powers-- they disbelieve all accounts of such for very good reasons. Should any actual evidence ever appear, you can bet it will be tested for and refined by scientists and win the JREF prize. Until that time, it seems logical for the majority of skeptics to conclude that all beliefs regarding invisible immeasurable entities (or powers) are products of human imagination. There is no logical reason to conclude otherwise. It defies reason to pretend that maybe someone's version of god exists but or some unknown reason doesn't want to be detected but somehow some person manage to actually detect him/her/it via valid means. And even if such a god existed... it is indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion or the imaginary god that the hijackers died for-- I cannot imagine a logical reason for believing in a god that is indistinguishable from such. Moreover, anyone who claims to believe in this "unknowable" god-- can't, by definition, know that he exists or anything about him. They have a god who has made himself indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion.

You skip over the stuff you don't like. But everyone has pretty much said that, though, skeptics can believe whatever they want... most use the skeptical method when examining the world to see if any invisible entities might exist--and conclude that they are all products of the imagination...just like they conclude that all psychics are frauds or fooling themselves. A theist seems like one who thinks that some psychics might be real or some people might really be possessed... and those aren't traits I associate with skepticism... or maybe "beginning skepticism 101"-- but no one has offered a valid definition of skepticism or a logical reason for any skeptic to conclude that god beliefs are rational or can be derived via the methods used by science.

Bri, you ignore direct responses to the questions you ask and bring up the same flawed arguments again and again. We have evidence that life exists on one planet-- it is composed of matter... we know other planets are composed of similar matter... and there are trillions of them. We don't know that any consciousness can exist absent matter--absent a living brain. All gods seem to require the belief that they can. And I can't see how anyone could skeptically make that leap.

One is based on facts-- the other appears to be based on shifting goalposts and nebulous definitions that hide from scrutiny and culturally derived belief systems--the same stuff demons are based on.

 

[articulett]

The intelligent life question in this thread was used as an example of belief. My belief there is intelligent life somewhere else is not as strong as my belief there are not gods. How skeptical does that make me?

I think that would put you on par with the majority of skeptics who weighed in.

Do you think a god belief is more reasonable than a belief in demons or that some people really are psychic? Or do you think that all such beliefs are equally unlikely. Do you think one could use the skeptical method and still retain a belief in the above... or do they need to shield such beliefs from skeptical inquiry.

Do you think the belief in an immeasurable untestable god necessitates a belief that consciousness can exist absent a living brain?--Absent matter? Do you think the majority of those who define themselves as skeptics conclude that such entities are are products of the human imagination--that is, they are --atheists... they don't have a belief in any such things?

 

[articulett]

From my perspective-- for agnostics, Beth and Bri seem to be a lot of semantic shenanigans to convince themselves that it's skeptical or logical to believe in a god-- or as skeptical and logical as not believing in one. I would say it's no more skeptical to believe in gods than in demons. I'm most skeptics aren't waiting to test every possibility to conclude that they are all imaginary.

Yes, Claus--skeptics can't disprove gods. But we can conclude that those who believe in them are fooling themselves as much as those who believe in astrology or Psychics or demons. We can presume that those who believe in them give credence to the notion that consciousness can exist without a brain despite any evidence that this is remotely possible and increasing evidence that the brain generates consciousness in it's entirety

Therefore, it is logical that most skeptics find "god" an irrational explanation for anything. The majority on this forum and notables in the field (like Randi) are, thus, atheists--as should be expected. Just as no psychic is likely to really have psychic powers... not god is likely to be truer than the ones we know are made up by men.