Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Beth]

Thanks for that post UnrepentantSinner, it made a good deal of sense, but you didn't address my question of "on what basis does one believe in an utterly intangible god?".

On the basis of personal subjective experiences and/or the basis of testimony from others regarding personal subjective experiences.

On what basis do you believe in other intangibles - like justice or free will? Do they exist? How do you know? Can you objectively measure them? Or do you depend on your own experiences and those of other people to figure out what they are and whether you believe such things exist.

 

[Big Les]

We all have our woo...

Yes, that's true. But people who think of themselves as sceptics tend to re-assess their own beliefs and positions based upon evidence. Oughtn't we to be critical of untestable beliefs too? For me, that translates to - there is no evidence, therefore no reason to believe in god.

I understand that the untestable nature of the god we're talking about, as opposed to the claims made in the past about "god", changes the complexion of this situation somewhat. But I can't get a handle on why it's so different as to warrant a default position of "does exist" rather than "doesn't". Both pending any future evidence of course. Although with an intangible god, you aren't going to get any more evidence unless you also believe in an afterlife of some sort. So to be sceptical of the idea of god surely, logically, means you adopt that latter position of "doesn't exist". In turn, this surely means that, as sceptical as a given individual might be about all sorts of things, if they say they believe in god, they aren't sceptical about that one issue.

Meaning, if one aspires to be wholly sceptical in outlook, one cannot also believe in god. Which was clearly the conclusion that prompted this topic to be started. Whilst implying that one should have certain beliefs is wrong, and clearly annoyed a few people, I have to agree with the basic sentiment.

This only applies if you see scepticism as always adopting a default position of disbelief without satisfactory evidence, which is certainly how I see it, but I could be wrong.

 

[-Fran-]

But recruiting is exactly what we're trying to do here. What word would be more accurate, "evangelizing"?

I surely wouldn't use the word evangelizing No, but is it really what the forum is about (I am talking specifically about the forum now, and not the JREF organisation as a whole, which I can see has such a cause.) I admit I can be wrong, maybe I have misunderstood the nature of this forum completely, but that is really not how I see it.

Could you clarify a bit what "we" means here? I am talking only about the JREF forum, and on this forum anyone can be a member. Atheists can, theist skeptics can, theists can, people believing in all sorts of woo can, etc, etc... and all are to follow the rules of the forum, and all have also the same right to speak their mind, question, discuss and criticise others' views and beliefs and start threads on what they want.

That is, in my mind, what WE is. How can it then be that the forum has such a specific cause that you mention, and how can it then be that people are recruited to this cause? I agree with many of the concerns you mentioned before, absolutely, but I didn't join foremost to fight it, especially not according to some consesus on how it ought to be fought, I will do it in my own way in that case. I surely wasn't recruited Does that mean I am at risk to work against the cause?

I honestly don't get it. I guess there are groupings within the JREF forum with causes, who recruits, and so on and that's perfectly fine. But as long as the rest of the people here does not break the forum rules they are free to speak of things that might not be useful (or even potentially hurtful) to those groupings' aims and goals, no?

ETA:
What I'm trying to say is that if the JREF organisation meant the forum to have exactly the same cause as the organisation I would have thought it would be a forum for actual JREF members only. A free forum MUST include even the T'ai Chis in the WE *shudder*

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Fran, I work nights and I'm past my bedtime and there's a number of good posts so let me just comment on the "We" section of your reponse.

For me it simply comes down to the 29 of 30 rule I've been advocating since long before most of those who ever joined the forum have been around to see. If I and someone who is a religious believer can agree that 29 of 30 topic are bunk because of the preponderance of evidence then I am willing to embrace that person as an ally for skepticism if what they believe is beyond the perview of the scientific method. If they make claims, then we have an issue, but I'm more interested in having an ally to fight those other 29 bogus claims than to worry too much about thier 30th belief which lies outside the perview of science anyway.

Part 2 of "We" cuts to the chase of my beef and relationship between the forum and the JREF. I joined the JREF because of the forum and I'm sure I'm not the only one. If the forum is perceived as an offshoot of AA or FFRF, how many skeptics who are religious are likely to join the JREF as I did so long ago? As I noted above, the problem is finding the balance between "you are not welcome here (and will be driven out for your religious beliefs despite US's 29/30 standard)" and "you are welcome to spew whatever nonsense you like."

There is a happy medium and I hate to bring up (and butcher) a cliche, but we're going to attract more flies with honey than with venom.

 

[-Fran-]

I suppose that, and the controversy here, comes from the way the OP was stated - "should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?". In fact, none of us can say that, or has the right to say that. I'm interested in the why and how of these, let's call them Deist, beliefs, but not in telling them that they shouldn't have those beliefs.

I agree with the 'should' possibly being the controversial part. When I read it I didn't see it like that. It was more a semantic thing to me. Should, as in: The word skeptic means A or B, should you then use the word for ideas and activities that are not A or B? That was what it said to me. I expected a discussion about if skepticism really does mean A or B, and so on, using concrete activities and so on, as examples. And I wondered (still do) how those who used the word like above, could then make it go together in their minds, in a logical sense. I never meant that they shouldn't, in real life, think and do what they want, and even said I thought it was good that they did, since in a practical sense they do good things. I think though, that when I see activities that shows this inconsistency it puzzles me. Not that they should stop doing it, or didn't do good doing it.

I guess I was guilty of reading my own thoughts into the OP, because I interpreted it that way, and defended the discussion from that premise. However, the skeptic theists are not the only ones who are absent from this thread, the original poster is too. I think it would be nice if he/she came back and clarified if it was meant the way I think, or if Cleon, for example, was more right in his criticism than I first thought (still think he over-reacted a little bit though )

 

[Belz...]

Yes, that's true. But people who think of themselves as sceptics tend to re-assess their own beliefs and positions based upon evidence. Oughtn't we to be critical of untestable beliefs too? For me, that translates to - there is no evidence, therefore no reason to believe in god.

Sure.

However, just because somebody believes in God doesn't mean they're not a skeptic; not by the usual meaning of the term, that is. Because then it becomes a question of: by what standards do we determine who's a skeptic ? You can be skeptical of many things but not all of them, and the ones you're skeptical of will vary from person to person. And from era to era, of course. Nobody would say that someone who thought the earth was flat in 5000 bc wasn't being skeptical.

Nobody's completely skeptical, anyway.

 

[-Fran-]

Fran, I work nights and I'm past my bedtime and there's a number of good posts so let me just comment on the "We" section of your reponse.

For me it simply comes down to the 29 of 30 rule I've been advocating since long before most of those who ever joined the forum have been around to see. If I and someone who is a religious believer can agree that 29 of 30 topic are bunk because of the preponderance of evidence then I am willing to embrace that person as an ally for skepticism if what they believe is beyond the perview of the scientific method. If they make claims, then we have an issue, but I'm more interested in having an ally to fight those other 29 bogus claims than to worry too much about thier 30th belief which lies outside the perview of science anyway.

Part 2 of "We" cuts to the chase of my beef and relationship between the forum and the JREF. I joined the JREF because of the forum and I'm sure I'm not the only one. If the forum is perceived as an offshoot of AA or FFRF, how many skeptics who are religious are likely to join the JREF as I did so long ago? As I noted above, the problem is finding the balance between "you are not welcome here (and will be driven out for your religious beliefs despite US's 29/30 standard)" and "you are welcome to spew whatever nonsense you like."

There is a happy medium and I hate to bring up (and butcher) a cliche, but we're going to attract more flies with honey than with venom.

I see what you are saying, I respect it, and agree to a certain extent. I am not, personally, out to annoy or anger the skeptic theists, and I agree that the "29/30" standard works well in a practical sense. I didn't get the impression either that you ever wanted to censor the forum to keep the theists happy, or some such thing.

I guess what it comes down to is how much we can expect the theist skeptics to take? For me, personally, I didn't see that the question, that this thread raised, would be unreasonable. I really can't see that an experienced person on this forum, confident in their beliefs would not be able to handle this level of questioning or criticism. It's not as they are singled out (in this thread, yes but not on the forum as a whole). Other valuable members on this forum who also do a lot of good have also had their views, thoughts, opinions and so on questioned and criticised.

We simply have a different view on what "venom" means here, I think. I think that ALL people here, valuable recruits or not, sooner or later have to face questioning and criticism about something about them. How can that be avoided, except in a forum where all are trying to be so polite to each other that it is soon only the weather that we can discuss (or a common enemy)?

I understand what you are saying, and personally I am sad if I came off as condescending to people here that I don't agree with, that's not what I intended. But I will keep saying what is actually my honest opinion, if a subject comes up where I feel like saying anything at all, and I can not foremost be concerned with if it happens to be possible to interpret what I say as going against the principle of "catching more flies with honey". It's not my intent to sabotage anything. But if I keep being honest with what I say, then sooner or later it will conflict with someone's view on how to catch the flies.

You may think this thread is a very clear example of something that should have been withheld because of the risk of conflicting with the "cathing flies" principle, and you may be right, but I didn't think it was. I was confident that the theist skeptics could take it (though I thought it could be controversial). I am still confident that most of them can, because very few of them has cared about this thread at all. Didn't bother them what the heck we think it would seem, and I think that's OK.

 

[articulett]

I'd just like to point out that a person's post count or perceived thick skin in no way justifies any personal attacks or rudeness. Also, you may find that some members take exception to being 'boxed' into labelled groups, so this should be avoided where possible.

To comment on topic, and not from a mod's perspective, I feel there is much to be lost by insisting that skeptics be atheist. Skepticism is aside from religion. It is a process, a method of managing information. I would never tell my deist or christian friends (or those of any other religions) that they are not skeptics, if I can clearly see that they use a skeptical approach in life.

Even the most atheist skeptic in the world is still likely to have a blind spot, or a misunderstanding of something. There is no such thing as a perfect skeptic - it's like the 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

I don't think anyone is insisting on skeptics being atheists... it's just that most are. "Atheist" is a label people give themselves just like Deist, Christian, or Skeptic. And all believers have labels they give non-believers-- Scientologists call non-scientologists, "wogs". Atheists have certainly received their share of negative labeling at the hands of theists, and many theists who come here carry such prejudices with them. Everybody thinks that people who fall into the category they label themselves are the "most moral" or "right"-- and nobody wants the labels given to them by others. But all of this is about opinions and feelings and so forth. I don't think that anyone can be successful in making others "believe" or "disbelieve" something. Belief is like feelings-- subject to manipulation but not ready control. And categorization is how humans understand the world-- we see the world in black and white and slowly fill in the shades of gray, and if we are lucky we eventually see it in color.

From my perspective, the people accusing other people of rudeness are very often far more rude than those they accuse.... more judgmental than those they accuse of judging them... more likely to group people into negative categories while complaining of others doing so to them. But rudeness, like belief, and opinions, and feelings-- are subjective.

When people come to this forum and expect a sort of deference towards a non-skeptical viewpoint, I think it's fair to show that they are not applying equal skepticism to their own woo as they do to other brands of woo. I don't agree with the position that the prospect of "some god" is as equally likely as "no god", and I don't like the kinds of statements that put the two claims on equal footing. "God exists" is an assertion that proposes a fact-- not an opinion.

The truth would be the same no matter what people believed. Some god of some sort exists in some way while being completely immeasurable and undetectable to humans-- or he/she/it/they do/does not. We understand that life evolved in only one manner whether we ever understand it completely or not-- but just because we don't have all the answers... doesn't make it skeptical or even rational to insert "magic". I don't tell people they are not skeptics. But when people share their opinion that "atheism is as irrational as theism" or some other such notion-- then I consider that an invitation to share my opinion to the contrary.

I consider skepticism a great tool for separating the truth that is the same for everybody from everything else-- myths, delusions, spin, opinion, lies, fables, fairy tales, hopes, wishful thinking, beliefs, mottoes, ideals, legends, etc. Because when we understand the facts-- they can bring us more knowledge... the kind that everyone can access--not just people of faith. I also think truth shouldn't be afraid to be prodded and tested and that it's important for skeptics to question the assertion that "faith is good" or a means of knowledge. I think it's important to pin down the points and definitions people are trying to convey and to expose manipulative language and inferences. How else does one learn the skills of critical thinking except through such practice?

There is no test for belief or skepticism or agnosticism... they are just words. But to me, the "goal" of skepticism and science and critical thinking is about discovering and understanding the facts... and learning to separate the things that are not facts from the facts so that we can learn more and not be hindered by the common snafus in human thinking (which Randi so expertly exposes). I think theism inculcates a kind of shield against this sort of knowledge by claiming "divine truths"-- and this keeps people from understanding really amazing facts that humans have uncovered and are sharing with each other for the first time thanks to advances in science and technology.

There is only one truth-- one reality-- one history of our universe-- and it's the same no matter what people believe. I would think that skepticism would be about discovering those facts, furthering them, using them to further understanding, and sharing them with others so that they might be protected against the manipulations of less scrupulous sorts-- so they can have the joy of thinking and learning and furthering knowledge... so they don't have to be handicapped by the "fear" of questioning faith.

Who is saying that you can't be a skeptic unless you are an atheist? I don't think skepticism has a dogma about what you must or mustn't believe. I think it's a strawman to suggest that this forum is chasing away "recruits" because of vocal atheists. (And why do you need to recruit people to the truth anyhow?) I think there are all kinds of people here that are off-putting and rarely does it have to do with insisting that skeptics be atheists. There are also all kinds of brilliant funny and insightful people that teach a great many without seeming awareness of the fact. Nobody is always brilliant or right or educational--but some are amazingly so, and I consider this a great resource to anyone who stumbles across this forum. I think the excellence far outweighs the negative. Plus, there are clearly very respected skeptics that are forthright about their beliefs (Hal's deism) who many people find to be very inspirational and who have much to teach and share. But Hal doesn't make claims about his beliefs that can be tested... he doesn't assert moral superiority for believing... neither do most of our respected believing forum members. He doesn't even claim that it's rational. He doesn't seem to hold judgments about non-believers based on their non-belief. He considers his beliefs personal and not a subject he wishes to have scrutinized by forum members.

While it's true that nobody knows everything and everyone has blind spots, skepticism to me is about using all of our minds to find out as much as we can about the real world we all share. Claims of divine knowledge can't have a part in that until or unless divine knowledge of some sort is proven to exist. People are free to have faith-- but faith is not a tool in the skeptics toolbox for understanding the world or to find out the truth. So although, not all skeptics are atheists, assertions regarding divine knowledge or divine entities are just not useful ways of finding information that is true... and I would expect all illogic to be probed on this forum when presented as a tool for finding such.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Sure.

However, just because somebody believes in God doesn't mean they're not a skeptic;

I don't follow.

Does empirical skepticism involve evaluating ideas based on evidence? Yes.

Does there exist the slimmest iota of evidence for the existence of god? No.

Ergo, belief in god is unskeptical.

 

[Big Les]

Sure.

However, just because somebody believes in God doesn't mean they're not a skeptic; not by the usual meaning of the term, that is.

I know, I've already made clear that I don't think a sceptic holding religious beliefs is somehow not a sceptic. If they held belief about something that was testable however, I would certainly make the argument that their claim to be a sceptic was on shaky ground. I'm not arguing that the sort of person under discussion isn't a sceptic, I'm saying that belief in a notional god sans evidence is by definition not sceptical. So as regards their own religion they are not sceptical. Consequently, I wonder why and how they hold this seemingly contradictory position. If they don't want to say, fine. I'll stop posting about it. I'm already sounding like a broken record. If fellow atheists could stop assuming that I'm playing No True Sceptic or having a pop at religious folk for the sake of it, I could have shut up already!

Because then it becomes a question of: by what standards do we determine who's a skeptic ? You can be skeptical of many things but not all of them, and the ones you're skeptical of will vary from person to person.

Setting aside the issue of defining who qualifies as a sceptic, because as I've said, I'm not interested in trying to do so, I do take issue with this truism of everyone being a bit woo or nobody being completely sceptical. Of course they aren't. But they mostly strive for internal consistency, don't they? I do. I'm not pathological about it, but I try not to hold beliefs that have nothing to support them. Hence why I struggle with this issue. And once again -we're not talking about not walking under ladders, or crossing your fingers for luck, we're talking about the existence of god. It's quite a big issue to decide in the affirmative about, when there's not a shred of evidence in favour of it.

And from era to era, of course. Nobody would say that someone who thought the earth was flat in 5000 bc wasn't being skeptical.

What's era got to do with it? We're talking about 21st Century sceptics holding 21st Century notions of religion.

Nobody's completely skeptical, anyway.

See above.

 

[Big Les]

I don't follow.

Does empirical skepticism involve evaluating ideas based on evidence? Yes.

Does there exist the slimmest iota of evidence for the existence of god? No.

Ergo, belief in god is unskeptical.

There's a subtle but important difference there that I think cuts to the heart of the misunderstanding here - belief in god is unsceptical, but holding that position does not invalidate one's scepticism about everything else, in particular claims made about the observable world.

I just don't see why a sceptic of tangible things would be unsceptical about an intangible god.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There's a subtle but important difference there that I think cuts to the heart of the misunderstanding here - belief in god is unsceptical, but holding that position does not invalidate one's scepticism about everything else, in particular claims made about the observable world.

I just don't see why a sceptic of tangible things would be unsceptical about an intangible god.

Believing in god doesn't inherently invalidate any other empirical skeptical analysis the person makes of other things, granted. I do, however, think belief in god compromises one's thinking process in a dangerous way. Personally, I think it's morally wrong to believe in something just because you want to.

 

[Belz...]

I don't follow.

Does empirical skepticism involve evaluating ideas based on evidence? Yes.

Does there exist the slimmest iota of evidence for the existence of god? No.

Ergo, belief in god is unskeptical.

I agree with your premises, but it isn't that simple.

As I said, nobody's completely skeptical, but it doesn't mean nobody's a skeptic.

 

[-Fran-]

I'd just like to point out that a person's post count or perceived thick skin in no way justifies any personal attacks or rudeness.

I agree, and I know I shouldn't have been nasty to him, just because he has often been rude to others, and because he's an "easy victim" as in few people will defend him if someone is nasty to him. I don't like anything about T'ai Chi (from what I have seen here on the forum) but I did once use the fact that it's easy to be nasty to him, and I don't like that about me!

 

[-Fran-]

I agree with your premises, but it isn't that simple.

As I said, nobody's completely skeptical, but it doesn't mean nobody's a skeptic.

This is not meant as criticism to what you say here because I agree with it. I see it a little bit as this (regarding this thread)

Theist skeptics fight people with woo believes even though they have a woo belief themselves - They do good in fighting harmful woo, so in practicality thats a good thing what they do and it works, so it's OK. And we can still always discuss it in all sorts of ways.

Skeptics (theist or not) live, discuss and reason from a skeptical viewpoint, even though none of them/us are, probably, skeptical a 100% at all times or with absolutely everything - It still works in practicality with a skeptical lifestyle so it's OK. And we can still always discuss it in all sorts of ways.

Just a personal musing

 

[-Fran-]

The goal is not to convert people, the goal is to engage in critical thought and discussion.

That has been my impression too!

 

[articulett]

There's a subtle but important difference there that I think cuts to the heart of the misunderstanding here - belief in god is unsceptical, but holding that position does not invalidate one's scepticism about everything else, in particular claims made about the observable world.

I just don't see why a sceptic of tangible things would be unsceptical about an intangible god.

Yes, but most atheists were believers at one time... so letting go is a process that skepticism can help along. Besides, I'm not sure beliefs are necessarily prone to logic just like feelings-- I'm not sure how much we control them. But when people assert beliefs as facts on a skeptics forum or try to put a belief in a god on par with nonbelief... then I suspect they are trying to prop up their beliefs. I think it makes sense to challenge such claims. Nobody is equally skeptical about everything I suppose-- but I think it's important to ask people why they are skeptical about other gods (or other woo) and not their own when they are doing the "my woo is the true woo" semantic dance in a JREF post. Sure, let it slide in real life. But on a skeptics forum I think all statements are fodder for query. It seems that many believers want their opinions "respected" but have no eagerness about showing similar respect for opposite opinions.

 

[articulett]

That has been my impression too!

Yes, yes. Because it's through this practice... that we become better at it.

We can't be afraid to question sacred cows.

The truth isn't open for debate-- it can only be understood... and skepticism offers the best tools for the job.

 

[-Fran-]

Yes, yes. Because it's through this practice... that we become better at it.

We can't be afraid to question sacred cows.

The truth isn't open for debate-- it can only be understood... and skepticism offers the best tools for the job.

Yes, to me, personally, this is a greater goal than uniting people in a common fight against harmful woo. I think that is good too, but not if it means we must conform to a consensus about how this is to be done, and can't question and criticise each other as we do "the others". To me the free word is more important here even when it is risking the work against harmful woo.

 

[articulett]

I don't follow.

Does empirical skepticism involve evaluating ideas based on evidence? Yes.

Does there exist the slimmest iota of evidence for the existence of god? No.

Ergo, belief in god is unskeptical.

Skepticism is a method... people don't apply it to all areas of their lives the same way... letting go of beliefs takes time as well... sometime it's the process of skepticism that pushes that along.

Besides, beliefs like feelings and primal instincts (hunger/sex drive) aren't really subject to rationality or willful control... Claims can be probed... actions can be controlled-- but I'm not sure you can force people to believe or not believe-- belief isn't even measurable unless tested... and it fluctuates... and most skeptics believed something or other when they started to employ the tools of skepticism that they no longer believe. I think the argument is just for more of a continuum. Most people who consider themselves skeptics are also naturalists for understandable reasons-- other people consider themselves skeptics but they use the tools more selectively. I think that there is this sort of plea that we remember back when we may have been such a person and treat others in the situation in a manner that might have been encouraging of our continued skepticism--rather than frightening us away.

I recently learned that Real American is a 14 year old boy. Now who wasn't naive at 14? Who didn't think they were skeptical while believing all sorts of crazy things and seeing the world in sort of black and white terms. I would have been gentler (or avoided the thread entirely) if I realized that I was talking to a kid. I was a skeptical kid-- but nothing like I am now. And I had a culturally indoctrinated fear and loathing of those who'd call themselves atheists. On the other hand, this is one of the places where I feel free to be vocal in my skepticism and dislike of what faith does to thinking. So I resent having to tone myself down so as to not hurt the feelings of the tender hearted. My feelings have been hurt plenty of times by the words of others-- I survived. I appreciate the thinking such words prodded in me, in fact. It's good to learn to think. And it's also good to learn to deal with people who say things that hurt your feelings, because such people are everywhere. It's useful to learn who has useful information to convey and how to ignore those who don't.