Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?
- Status
Your impression is correct.
"We cannot know if God exists" is not skeptical?
True! Though I prefer to put god on the back shelf with santa until there's some reeeally good evidence
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
jmercer; said:
Once someone has reached a conclusion about Santa's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.
Somehow, that seems much less convincing when applied to other sorts of nonsense.
GreNME
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 8,276
I don't see a lot of questioning going on, I see a lot of forgone assumptions along with accusations.
Look, you're perfectly free to disagree. After all, this is a matter of communication, not cold, hard fact. As an example, you may very well have every intention on being of a position to question when you feel appropriate or how you feel appropriate, yet to me you can still be coming off as someone who has already made up their mind and is basically using others as a sounding board to reinforce a conclusion you have no desire to change.
I'm using you and me as slightly unrepresentative examples, if only because I don't think that's exactly the distinct impression you as an individual have given toward me in particular (runonrunon). It is, however, the impression this subforum seems to give off in my reading of the first couple pages of threads to get a feel for the tone. In this thread alone I am not the only one saying it, though I may be saying it more about the subforum than others.
For what it's worth, I really don't mean to be disrespectful to theists, that's not my intention, and I agree that people don't always realize how they come across to others. I just want to speak my mind on all sort of questions, and I dislike the feeling that some issues might be taboo to discuss. I admit that I can become defensive too, if I feel that that's the case (whether it is really a reality, or just in my head). I'm not perfect in any sense of the word
In this case, I see about half of the people in this thread getting the same impressions as you, and half of them getting the same impressions as me (I haven't counted, but something like that). So I admit it is more of an open question really what really is the truth (as in, if most people in this thread really did meant to be insulting and disrespectful toward the theists here on JREF, or not) I realize I can be wrong, but my impression that it is not the case for the thread as a whole, is honest. And even if I can understand Cleon to a certain extent, I still do think that he did over-react.
Last edited:
You're right. I would be willing to change my mind even of Santa though, if the evidence were strong enough, so in that sense I do agree with jmercer, however for some things, that happening (evidence being found) seems to me SO unlikely as to me never really needing to bother with it in any practical sense. For me god and santa are both put on the same shelf in the back of the cupboard for that reason.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
jmerc, from this I derive that either only an agnostic is a skeptic, or that only an agnostic is able to act skeptically.
Did I understand you correctly?
(PS: A belated Happy Birthday to you, 10 Nov, and 232 years of your Corps, "former" considered.
)For all hands: six of the skeptics whose posts I read with anticipation (not the only ones, but a goodly sampling) are
jmercer
Garrette
RandFan
Capel Dodger
Mercutio
Marquis De Carabas
All of these skeptics demonstrate that one can be a skeptic without being a right prick. What GrenMe and Apology have both pointed out in this thread is that such prickishness can drive away otherwise sympathetic leanings toward a general sense of, or practice of, skepticism.
Demanding adherence to a narrowly defined True Skepticism seems to me a profound error in packaging. Being inclusive, rather than exclusive, is a better approach if you want to broaden the skeptical base. (Digression: the exclusive/inclusive problem is part of why Gnosticism failed and Christianity, as it grew, succeeded.)
Gee, more flies with honey than vinegar, and we see the admonition for a lively and friendly discourse right at the top of the page. (TA, thanks for the nod. Appreciated, mate.)
Full disclosure: I can be a right prick about any number of things, and realize that it can detract from the message.
This takes us back to the OP.
What is the purpose of this attempt to define skeptic in such a manner?
Kilt sales?
It is the Christmas and gift a thon season, so perhaps the aim is commercial.
DR
Last edited:
Maybe I'm being thick, but I just don't see the difference between your statement, and the Santa one after it, or even;
"Once someone has reached a conclusion about the Invisible Pink Unicorn's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical."
Why does the concept of god carry any more weight than literally anything else I, you, or anyone else could conceive of that have no evidence? We put aside suggestions that there might be such a unicorn, or out-of-body experiences, ghosts, whatever, on the basis that they have no evidence at all. They might exist, but we assume that they don't for the time being, until some evidence comes to light (if ever).
Is it just that people personalyl like the idea of a god, so they keep it on their own mental back-burner in case some evidence turns up (i.e. they die and find out they were right)? Or is it literally, as Claus implies, a way of dealing with the more difficult to deal with aspects of life, without actually having it interfere in your everyday life by requiring any evidence for it?
In either case, what is it about not overtly making any claims (other than the implicit one that you think a god exists) that makes you any different from any other believer? Just because they may not appreciate that if you make testable claims, you need to back them up, doesn't mean that their personal belief in ghosts, alien visitors, psychic powers etc is any less valid, surely?
Imagine a believer in another immeasurable supernatural concept, instead of arguing the toss here on the forum because they don't grasp what constitutes quality evidence, instead said "well OK, my evidence isn't up to scratch, I accept that. But I'm still going to believe in ghosts regardless". Would you think that entirely reasonable? I think I'm getting closer to why I have trouble understanding the religion/scepticism compatibility issue. Like Fran, I certainly don't mean to demean any religious sceptics here, and I'm a bit nonplussed by Cleon's reaction in particular, which seemed to be along the lines of righteous indignation that his beliefs were being questioned i.e. not terribly justifiable. On the other hand, I realise he's not making any specific claims about it, nor is he co-opting science, trying to foist his beliefs on other people etc etc. That's great. I'm not saying he and others shouldn't hold these unsupported beliefs, I'd just like to try to understand why and how they do, because for me personally it would be a struggle to reconcile what I see as otherwise universally applicable scepticism. Yeah, sure, I often fail to apply it, but I try to recognise this and avoid it, because I like to be consistent. This is why I said religious scepticism was the "elephant in the living room", because it's not like a "universal" sceptic who happens to say, gamble, or be afraid of the dark. Tangible or not, god is an earth-shattering concept, and I would want to address its veracity using the same tool. And for me the inevitable conclusion of using that tool is that god is no more real than said unicorn.
I hope that makes my thoughts clearer rather than more confused
Last edited:
I hope that makes my thoughts clearer rather than more confused
They weren't confusing to begin with, I think
True, if your goal is actually to catch flies
I'm not sure that is the goal of all people posting on JREF?
Last edited:
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
While you may be right, Fran, the aim of the JREF itself is to spread and promote critical thinking as a method, or perhaps as a world view, or even merely as a part of a world view.True, if your goal is actually to catch flies
Efforts contra that are contra the aims of the JREF. Scaring people off by being a prick about skepticism, should one do that, is thus a self defeating actiion for those who endorse critical thinking.
Are you suggesting that we have in our midst subversives? Are false flag skeptical operatives running rampant among us? Is this all a grand illusion?
Just asking questions.
DR
I agree DR, and I try to moderate my bletherings these days to avoid causing needless offence. But on the other side of the coin, taking offense, claiming religious persecution and then buggering off is also a defence mechanism to avoid challenging ones own beliefs. Not that this is happening here, just that no matter what atheists (if not sceptics) say, it's possible for the religious to play this card rather like a lizard shedding its tail. Oh dear. Poker-playing reptiles? I appear to be metaphorically challenged...
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
They were playing Whist, no problem.
Call.
By the way, Les, overly sensitive Christians taking offense at the drop of a hat are likewise doing a crap job os packaging their message.
DR
While you may be right, Fran, the aim of the JREF itself is to spread and promote critical thinking as a method, or perhaps as a world view, or even merely as a part of a world view.
Efforts contra that are contra the aims of the JREF. Scaring people off by being a prick about skepticism, should one do that, is thus a self defeating actiion for those who endorse critical thinking.
Are you suggesting that we have in our midst subversives? Are false flag skeptical operatives running rampant among us? Is this all a grand illusion?
Just asking questions.
DR
Didn't say if it was right or wrong, just saying, some posting here does not seem to share that goal, no. Doesn't mean they are against the goal, though
I guess there would be some people that could be described as something in between. Some seem not to want to work very hard for the actual aim of JREF, but are not bent on scaring people off either, some seem just to like to talk and hang out with like-minded people, maybe spending the most time in a subforum such as the humor-one, or the film/TV/music-ones, and similar subforums that are not really put here to act first as aids in the JREF aim and cause, but as social venues. I guess it's possible to be around here and not support the aim very actively, without trying to kind of "sabotage" the aim (for want of a better word).
So, I was maybe expressing myself a bit unclearly, but I wasn't really talking about people who made an effort against JREF's aim when I said not all are here to 'catch the flies', I meant the ones who don't care either way, I guess, or they agree with the cause, but are just as happy to "let others do the work", while still being interested in what is said around here.
But I see that it could be interpreted that way, what I said.
ETA:
Personally I think it's quite OK, to agree with the aim in general, be interested in things discussed here, and speak your mind about things - at the same time as not really wanting to be part of a cause or a movement, or actively work for these things (I suppose you can still do some good now and then, just from pure chance though
). Surely you can still be a member on those premises? I guess I am one of those people (that I mentioned last here).
Last edited:
I always think a good test of whether someone is being sceptical about anything is the old stand-by question "what would it take to change your mind?". If the answer is "nothing" than you probably can't say you are "a sceptic" or being sceptical about that particular opinion, view or conclusion.
As an example already used in this thread - in everyday talk I am quite happy to say that I know "for certain" that the (mainstream) Christian god does not exist. However although I am confident in that conclusion I still hold my conclusion is only provisional in other words I could be wrong (and I can think of some ways that I could be persuaded of this). This, I think, is often the key difference between someone who can be described as "a sceptic" and someone who can't be i.e. whether they acknowledge what they "know" is subject to change and their conclusions are only ever provisional.
So for me (as an example) someone who describes themselves as a "Christian" could either be "a sceptic" or not depending on what level of certainty they claim for their conclusion; one who is certain that their God exists is not sceptical, one who claims that they know that their conclusion may not be correct can accurately call themselves a sceptic just as I could.
Now some may argue that anyone who considers themselves a Christian is not being a "good" sceptic (because they've come to an "obviously wrong" conclusion) but generally those are just arguments over what size kilt is the right size kilt.
As an example already used in this thread - in everyday talk I am quite happy to say that I know "for certain" that the (mainstream) Christian god does not exist. However although I am confident in that conclusion I still hold my conclusion is only provisional in other words I could be wrong (and I can think of some ways that I could be persuaded of this). This, I think, is often the key difference between someone who can be described as "a sceptic" and someone who can't be i.e. whether they acknowledge what they "know" is subject to change and their conclusions are only ever provisional.
So for me (as an example) someone who describes themselves as a "Christian" could either be "a sceptic" or not depending on what level of certainty they claim for their conclusion; one who is certain that their God exists is not sceptical, one who claims that they know that their conclusion may not be correct can accurately call themselves a sceptic just as I could.
Now some may argue that anyone who considers themselves a Christian is not being a "good" sceptic (because they've come to an "obviously wrong" conclusion) but generally those are just arguments over what size kilt is the right size kilt.
They are - as long as they keep in mind that their conclusion is not "THE TRUTH" and it may change if new evidence or reasoning comes along.
- Status