Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[ImaginalDisc]

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.

I have reached the same conclusion about Santa and God, based on the current evidence I cannot reject the null hypothesis - namely, that they are fictitious. That's a conclusion based on current evidence, so maybe in the future there might be evidence to make me reject the null hypothesis.

 

[-Fran-]

I have reached the same conclusion about Santa and God, based on the current evidence I cannot reject the null hypothesis - namely, that they are fictitious. That's a conclusion based on current evidence, so maybe in the future there might be evidence to make me reject the null hypothesis.

Yeah, but I admit I feel pretty confident that it would be a bad idea to hold my breath waiting for it

It does seem almost as unlikely to me that there ever will be any new evidence in the future, concerning god and santa, either. But I admit that I can't be 100% sure.

 

[-Fran-]

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.

I agree!! Though that doesn't mean, just as you said above, that I am not reasonably confident in my provisional conclusions, for example about god and santa.

Sometimes, when discussing things with believers of different kinds, I have noticed that they latch on to the concept of provisional conclusions as you being very unsure about what conclusion you have actually reached, and that is not quite so. That I admit that one can't be 100% sure of what new evidence might be found in the future, does not mean that it wouldn't take some very new, very convincing and very different (from what there is now) evidence.

Not directed at you, just a general observation.

 

[gtc]

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

"We cannot know if God exists" is not skeptical?

You are correct that 'We cannot know if God exists' is a conclusion, but I think that he was implying a more definitive conclusion such as 'God exists' or 'God does not exist'.

This seems obvious to me from the context and wording of the sentence but might not be to others.

 

[articulett]

I think that most skeptics apply a scientific approach to knowingness-- hence most don't accept claims involving the supernatural. Most gods appear to lie in the supernatural realm. So I think it makes sense that the majority of skeptics hold no beliefs about any gods-- that is, they are atheistic. It's not a requirement... and some people certainly apply more skepticism to some areas of their life than others. But unless or until there is convincing evidence that some kind of consciousness can exist outside of a living brain, I think most skeptics conclude that such a prospect is increasingly unlikely-- that makes gods, demons, and souls all products of human imagination.

After all, we have lots of evidence that people invent such things... and we know for certain the vast majority have been illusions (Zeus, Baal, etc.) And despite eons of belief, we haven't a smidgen of measurable evidence. Compare that to DNA (something no almighty anything ever mentioned, but now we know tons about.)

I don't really know how a skeptic believes in a god or what the nature of that god might be other than a comforting notion or maybe a hedging one's bets ala Pascel's wager.

 

[Apology]

True, if your goal is actually to catch flies I'm not sure that is the goal of all people posting on JREF?

Well we did recently have that referral contest that arthwollipot won. I think the JREF wants new users.

Some of the people coming here to check it out aren't enjoying it and aren't wanting to come back. I presume some of them were fairly rational people and the JREF members who referred them expected them to like the site. I had one or two who didn't like it because of all the bickering.

Everyone that I've linked to a RSLancaster/Sylvia Browne thread because they had an interest in Browne has liked those threads and RS's site though. That's why I think it has more to do with delivery rather than message.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Supernatural really can't be tested by the scientific method. Claims about the Supernatural definately can. While I hate the Santa analogy in toto, I'll explain why below, it makes a good one for explaining testability. It's claimed that Santa lives at the North Pole and comes down the chimney to deliver presents. This can be falsified becuase we've been to the North Pole and there's no house, reindeer livery or workshop full of elves, houses that don't have chimneys still wind up with presents and children who do live in houses with chimneys sometimes don't get presents.

Unfortunately testing claims about the Supernatural aren't so cut and dried. Take prayer efficacy studies for example. Where to do we put the error bar for the mind of God? How do we determine if someone did or did not improve because God made it happen or didn't?

I think the correct skeptical position is either weak atheism or agnosticism, and, as Darat pointed out, those positions should be provisional.

------------
Back to Santa. The real problem I have with it is that there once was a real Santa Claus. Our modern concept of him is far removed from the good deeds of St. Nicholas though and it's entirely possible that is the case with all religions today.

 

[CFLarsen]

You are correct that 'We cannot know if God exists' is a conclusion, but I think that he was implying a more definitive conclusion such as 'God exists' or 'God does not exist'.

This seems obvious to me from the context and wording of the sentence but might not be to others.

But we can actually say "God does not exist", the same definitive way we can say "The Earth is not flat". We can do that because the scientific evidence shows this. While always provisional, it is as definitive as it can get without becoming dogmatic.

The atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is a skeptic. The atheist who says "There is no God, regardless of what comes up" is certainly not a skeptic. Such a person is no different from someone who says "Sylvia is a psychic, regardless of what comes up".

 

[dann]

So there is no Sylvia??

 

[Autolite]

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

Oh my! I have reached the conclusion that 2+2=4. Does this mean that I am no longer being skeptical?

Acknowledging that god doesn't exist is simply acknowledging reality. It isn't my fault that there are so many folks who are incapable of determining what's real and what isn't ...

 

[Lonewulf]

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.

This ^----- has won the argument.

Argument over, Darat wins.

 

[Dancing David]

The ET Corn Gods case has been discussed on another forum that I frequent, and many of the posters there say they have been driven away from the JREF by anti-theistic sentiment. They might have helped us against Sylvia Browne or Bigfoot, but now they're anti-skeptics because they feel they were insulted for their religious beliefs. Thus far, everyone on the other board who has a beef with the JREF has cited a thread here in religion and philosophy as their reason, in particular the ID thread. I think it's a damn shame, personally.

This is an exciting forum, I have been toasted quite a bit here myself. It is less than it used to be.

I have been toasted as a religous apologist for having stated that there are usually political benefits to the things done in religions name.

But it is true that in this forum there is a huge amount of driveby sarcasm, usually never followed up upon that can really distract the conversation.

 

[Dancing David]

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

People get toasted here, it doesn't matter if you are an atheist or not.

The problem that i see is that people don't often seperate the thoughts from the people expressing them, and the false intimacy of the internet.

All sorts of ideas are debated and unfortunately slammed around here. Ifind that the greatest problem with the forum is the driveby pithy retort, where a poster will just try to score funny haha points and acts as though that is critical thought, there are frequent examples of this. many people will do a sarcastic driveby and then never respond to the very cogent counters that are offered.

It used to be much worse on this board, there was a herd mentality that what was funniest was often the most true.

 

[Mobyseven]

It's not religion-extempting. It's simply acknowledging that skepticism doesn't concern itself with non-testable claims.

Yes it does.

If a claim is untestable, I can conclude that there is no difference between a universe in which the claim is true and a universe in which the claim is false.

In addition to that, I am aware that there are a finite number of claims that can be made about the universe that are true, while there are an infinite number of claims that are false.

It is far more likely, therefore, that any given claim about the universe will be false. On top of that, if I believe in one untestable claim, I have set a precedent by which there is no reason not to believe in all untestable claims - of which there are an infinite amount. And finally, there are untestable claims about the universe which are mutually exclusive with other untestable claims about the universe - and I have no method by which I can rationally decide which one to believe in.

As such, when presented with an untestable claim I should not believe the truth of the claim.

 

[Mobyseven]

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

I disagree. One can reach a conclusion about anything. Scientists do it all the time. Skeptics do it all the time.

What matters is whether a person is willing to admit that they may have reached an incorrect conclusion - could further evidence, if presented, change your mind about the conclusion you originally reached?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes it does.

Name one.

If a claim is untestable, I can conclude that there is no difference between a universe in which the claim is true and a universe in which the claim is false.

In addition to that, I am aware that there are a finite number of claims that can be made about the universe that are true, while there are an infinite number of claims that are false.

If there are a finite number of claims that can be made about the universe that are true, it must mean that there are also a finite number of questions that we can ask about the universe that will give true answers.

You are in effect saying that there is a limit to knowledge of the universe.

It is far more likely, therefore, that any given claim about the universe will be false. On top of that, if I believe in one untestable claim, I have set a precedent by which there is no reason not to believe in all untestable claims - of which there are an infinite amount.

That's true: If you believe in astrology, you have already given up reason and critical thinking, so there is no reason not to believe in fairies.

However, once you have abandoned reason, you are probably not going to use reason not to believe in other things. You believe in astrology because you like the idea that astrology is true, but you don't believe in psychic surgery, because you don't like that idea.

And finally, there are untestable claims about the universe which are mutually exclusive with other untestable claims about the universe - and I have no method by which I can rationally decide which one to believe in.

As such, when presented with an untestable claim I should not believe the truth of the claim.

A fool can ask more questions than 10 wise men can answer.

 

[Big Les]

Yes it does.

If a claim is untestable, I can conclude that there is no difference between a universe in which the claim is true and a universe in which the claim is false.

In addition to that, I am aware that there are a finite number of claims that can be made about the universe that are true, while there are an infinite number of claims that are false.

It is far more likely, therefore, that any given claim about the universe will be false. On top of that, if I believe in one untestable claim, I have set a precedent by which there is no reason not to believe in all untestable claims - of which there are an infinite amount. And finally, there are untestable claims about the universe which are mutually exclusive with other untestable claims about the universe - and I have no method by which I can rationally decide which one to believe in.

As such, when presented with an untestable claim I should not believe the truth of the claim.

Exactly. And I see belief in a god as a de facto (if untestable) claim. Which is why I can't understand how sceptics can take the one thing on board with no evidence and presumably live their lives according to it, and not all the other claims for which there is no evidence. On what basis do they hold their belief?

What's the qualitative difference between holding an untestable belief and witholding any testable claims about it, and holding an untestable belief, and misguidedly making claims that are testable? Is the only difference between a sceptic and a believer that they know when to keep their mouths shut?

I hope that I haven't offended anyone, but I really don't see why we can't politely discuss this. Why shouldn't religious beliefs, even ones that aren't applied to the physical world as such, be questioned, to the enlightenment of all concerned? I would hope that sceptical religious folk would be able to do this rather than taking offence and clamming up. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone believing in god can't be a sceptic otherwise. I appreciate scepticism applied to anything, even if it isn't applied universally, because "god" knows that's not even possible. It's just that the god thing seems rather a big irrationality to adhere to if one is otherwise very sceptical. Which was my earlier point/question that has so far gone unanswered.

 

[Beth]

In addition to that, I am aware that there are a finite number of claims that can be made about the universe that are true, while there are an infinite number of claims that are false.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Is it not possible that there are an infinite number of true claims about the universe?

As such, when presented with an untestable claim I should not believe the truth of the claim.

How about the claim that there are a finite, rather than an infinite number of true claims that can be made about our universe? Isn't that an untestable claim?

 

[GreNME]

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.

Well, I'd also like to say that reading that from you has also changed my mind somewhat.

 

[Big Les]

If you believe in astrology, you have already given up reason and critical thinking, so there is no reason not to believe in fairies.

This doesn't seem to be consistent with the idea that you can maintain an unsupported belief in god, yet still exercise reason and critical thinking otherwise. In other words, and I recognise this, you can believe in god without evidence and still demand evidence for anything claimed to affect the physical world. I see that, and I welcome religious sceptics just as I do atheistic ones. I just don't see how it's a consistent position.

However, once you have abandoned reason, you are probably not going to use reason not to believe in other things. You believe in astrology because you like the idea that astrology is true, but you don't believe in psychic surgery, because you don't like that idea.

Exactly - a non-sceptical approach based upon subjective plausibility. Without evidence, what's the reason for believing in god? Isn't it the same - that you like the idea?