Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[ImaginalDisc]

But your objections to a "Christian sceptic" relies on a certain definition of a Christian. In the UK we had a CofE Bishop saying a Christian didn't have to believe in the Virgin birth, the miracles in the Bible and so on all of which show to me quite a sceptical approach to his own beliefs. Yes this may be a minority view but if we want to be accurate in what we say about people we have to try and avoid generalities that in the end obscure the facts.

Christianity without the miracles is not a religion. I don't even know what it is without the resurrection, God, Jesus, Casper, and all the rest, a collection of hymns?

 

[Darat]

Christianity without the miracles is not a religion. I don't even know what it is without the resurrection, God, Jesus, Casper, and all the rest, a collection of hymns?

Sounds like the CofE.

 

[Big Les]

You misunderstand. I am not saying that we cannot reach a provisional conclusion based on the evidence.

Then I wonder what different thought processes are occurring between theistic sceptics and atheistic ones.

Because you can't disprove gods, exactly the same way you can't disprove invisible pink unicorns.

You are falling into the same trap as those who once claimed that rocks couldn't fall from the sky. Your mind is closed to the possibility of gods and unicorns.

My mind is closed? I haven't heard that from a sceptic before, thanks for the laugh. It's no more closed to this possibility than any other. However, my provisional conclusion is that neither exists. Why have theistic sceptics come to a different conclusion? On what basis do they choose to believe in gods over unicorns, or anything else?

If your criticism has to have any value, you have to point to some concrete example of a believer in god who claim that their unverified-and-unverifiable god is equally rational. Otherwise, you are simply erecting a strawman.

No, because I'm asking whether they consider it rational or not, and if not, why they believe in it.

How do you tell if a mother loves her child? Can a mother abstain from hugging her child and still love it?

If she abstains from every display of affection, altruism, and anything else that might qualitively elevate her relationship with her child from mere acquaintance to anything that could be described love, then she doesn't love that child. She might imagine that she does, as a sceptic might imagine that there's a god, but neither act of imagination makes either idea true.

I'm not saying otherwise.

You're not, but frankly as you appear to be arguing devil's advocate, I'm not so interested in what you imagine theistic scepticism to be, as the theistic sceptics themselves. This is all very interesting, but I'm arguing more to the concept at hand than to you. I've established that you think such beliefs are irrational and for comfort only, but I would like to hear why these sceptics believe this from the horses' mouth, as it were.

Have I said it will never be forthcoming? I have said the exact opposite.

I wasn't claiming that you had, sorry. I was assuming that as we were talking about an unverifiable untestable god, there would be no evidence. But it then occurred to me that we can't actually know whether there might be evidence in future, making your claim that the god in question is unverifiable and untestable invalid. If god is notionally verifiable and testable, well then, so are psychics, and sceptics typically assume that psychics don't exist, despite it being possible that one day, evidence will emerge.

Which brings me back again to the same question. Why choose to believe in god, and not unicorns, or psychics, or anything else that (currently) lacks any evidence? Why make belief your provisional conclusion when non-belief makes more sense? You've answered that with "comfort". I find that disappointing, want to know if there's more to it.

That's what you don't get: Why do you expect an irrational belief to be rational?

Well, for one thing, although I saw it as irrational, I wasn't sure whether the believers at least, thought otherwise. To wilfully hold self-acknowledged irrational belief on such an important issue seemed strange and inconsistent to me, as I keep saying.

Besides, you only responded to part of my statement/question there. Are they not being at least as unsceptical as me, by deciding that there is a god?

Who are "they"?

Self-identified sceptics who believe in a god. There have been precious few posting here at all, but Cleon would be the one I had in mind, mostly because of his (understandable in the circumstances) outburst but his, and by implication any others, apparent unwillingness to discuss the issue.

Are they saying it is rational?

No, they aren't saying much of anything. Assuming they agree that it isn't rational, why hold a belief etc etc ad infinitum see above.

Try to understand that you can't apply rationality to irrational beliefs.

I understand that. WHY hold the irrational belief in the first place? Because it gives a warm fuzzy feeling doesn't seem to justify abandoning rationality (as far as this one issue goes) to me. If the god does nothing, says nothing, and influences nothing, it might as well be nothing. In fact, it is nothing. What does it mean to say "I believe in god"? What are the implications? How does it affect anyone's life?

I have, with the Contact example. Also, see my reply to skeptigirl.

Both of which amount to "how can you disprove god?". To which the obvious answer is "I don't have to". The person stating belief in god is making a claim by implication. If they believe in god, they must think god exists. Otherwise they are not believing in god, they are pretending to do so. Therefore, as with any other extraordinary claim, the onus is on them to support that claim. If they don't want to, that's fine. But I don't have to do the opposite either, and the default position/provisional conclusion of "doesn't exist" holds true. If as you say they are being irrational with regard to god, then their belief is meaningless to anyone but them and open to criticism of the sort being levelled in this thread.

Discussion over then.

What is the difference in someone who believes in something he doesn't claim evidence of, and someone who disbelieves in something he doesn't claim evidence of?

Rationality. Which we've dealt with. And I see as a desirable thing to apply in as many areas of one's life as possible. But see my question above - in your own strict definition of the term scepticism (which I accept is valid), are the theistic sceptics not being at least as unsceptical as me in siding with belief over non-belief before any evidence has come to light?

Have you read "Contact"? Not just seen the movie, but read the book?

No. I haven't seen the film either. I was aware of the dialogue you quoted, and had seen a similar philosophical "consider the lily" style retort elsewhere, and wasn't convinced by it there either. As another poster said, it smacks of cop-out and condescension on both sides, as I countered to you, the two concepts are not directly analogous. One is a measurable product of natural phenomena that has an imagined component, the other was once thought to have measurable products but is now held despite discreditation as an entirely imaginary concept.

 

[Big Les]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I believe, say, that the human species will get better in the future; not necessarily à la Star Trek, but still. There is no evidence that this will happen. Would this make me a woo ? Am I unskeptical, now ? [/quote]

The difference, of course, being that people actually exist, and evidence has shown that there can be a better lifestyle amongst humans. Today is not equivalent to the 1800s, for instance.

Yes, that's speculation, (optimistic) extrapolation from past trends, and hope. If it's a belief at all it's a rational one that's at least possible according to known science and history, and is somewhat supported by evidence. I actually find it impossible to hold beliefs that I cannot see have an objective basis.

Perhaps the answer is straightforward that by the strictest, philosophical definition of scepticism, it's no more unsceptical to believe in god than to actively disbelieve in one. But it is less rational. And sceptics tend to value rationality, and even to equate the two things.

This leaves us with a reworded OP of "Should consistently rational sceptics, by definition, be Atheists?" To which the answer is an emphatic "yes". This leaves the "somewhat irrational sceptics" just as sceptical as us atheists, and both "sides" prone to various irrationalities of one sort or another. Everybody's happy. Right?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Sounds like the CofE.

Cute. I'm not going to play twenty questions. If the Church of England makes even one untestable supernatural claim, such as "god exists" it's bunk and is inherently unskeptical.

 

[-Fran-]

A forum such as this must certainly include even the T'ai Chis (although I wouldn't include him in the "we, skeptics").

The T'ai Chis of this world serve as a constant reminder of just how dangerous false beliefs are - and how dangerous those are who know they preach falsehoods.

Yeah, he is certainly not included in the "skeptic we", no. Now that would be all "Twilight Zone" But that was the actual point with that post yes, that even if the "skeptic we" is a very big part of JREF, the JREF forum on the whole is actually not a "skeptic we" but a "human we". Which means that we have to take the good with the bad, and the bad with the good if we want to keep the freedom of the forum, and the diversity, that I, in the long run, think is basically good for the dynamic of the forum. Even better that they are shown in the open if they are dangerous.

No, it's not being skeptical to presume that things don't exist until they have been proven to do so. The skeptical thing is to say that we don't know either way until evidence comes in, whatever it may show.

I will take your stance if convinced that it is the right one, but I am doubtful and lean toward the other. Actually I think you should start a new thread with this question (if someone haven't already, I just woke up and this is the first I see here) becasue I guess it is a rather essential question. This is two very different ways to be skeptical in, and I can see both ways having its "fans" around here. It does not seem to be a settled question.

 

[-Fran-]

There isn't, you're quite right. I'm not proposing that we do anything about it, just trying to get my head around the apparent inconsistency.

Try to understand that you can't apply rationality to irrational beliefs.

Isn't that how we know that it's irrational?

 

[CFLarsen]

Then I wonder what different thought processes are occurring between theistic sceptics and atheistic ones.

I was addressing skeptigirl's post, but:

If your theist believes in an intervening god, he isn't a skeptic.

My mind is closed? I haven't heard that from a sceptic before, thanks for the laugh. It's no more closed to this possibility than any other. However, my provisional conclusion is that neither exists. Why have theistic sceptics come to a different conclusion? On what basis do they choose to believe in gods over unicorns, or anything else?

No, not yours. Skeptigirl's.

No, because I'm asking whether they consider it rational or not, and if not, why they believe in it.

And I am not addressing your post here either, but skeptigirl's.

If she abstains from every display of affection, altruism, and anything else that might qualitively elevate her relationship with her child from mere acquaintance to anything that could be described love, then she doesn't love that child. She might imagine that she does, as a sceptic might imagine that there's a god, but neither act of imagination makes either idea true.

Love has to be extrovert? Why? A silent love isn't love? The more apparent the love is, the stronger it is?

You're not, but frankly as you appear to be arguing devil's advocate, I'm not so interested in what you imagine theistic scepticism to be, as the theistic sceptics themselves. This is all very interesting, but I'm arguing more to the concept at hand than to you. I've established that you think such beliefs are irrational and for comfort only, but I would like to hear why these sceptics believe this from the horses' mouth, as it were.

I'm not being the devil's advocate.

I am the devil.

I wasn't claiming that you had, sorry. I was assuming that as we were talking about an unverifiable untestable god, there would be no evidence. But it then occurred to me that we can't actually know whether there might be evidence in future, making your claim that the god in question is unverifiable and untestable invalid. If god is notionally verifiable and testable, well then, so are psychics, and sceptics typically assume that psychics don't exist, despite it being possible that one day, evidence will emerge.

We can say now that there is no intervening god, because there is no evidence. We can't say anything about the future. Go back and read my example of the rocks falling out of the sky.

Which brings me back again to the same question. Why choose to believe in god, and not unicorns, or psychics, or anything else that (currently) lacks any evidence? Why make belief your provisional conclusion when non-belief makes more sense? You've answered that with "comfort". I find that disappointing, want to know if there's more to it.

Maybe precisely because such a god is not evidential? Credo consolans?

Well, for one thing, although I saw it as irrational, I wasn't sure whether the believers at least, thought otherwise. To wilfully hold self-acknowledged irrational belief on such an important issue seemed strange and inconsistent to me, as I keep saying.

But you are criticizing them for how you view their belief in a non-existing god. You can't expect them to think that it is rational.

Besides, you only responded to part of my statement/question there. Are they not being at least as unsceptical as me, by deciding that there is a god?

Of course.

Self-identified sceptics who believe in a god. There have been precious few posting here at all, but Cleon would be the one I had in mind, mostly because of his (understandable in the circumstances) outburst but his, and by implication any others, apparent unwillingness to discuss the issue.

That's one. Who else?

I understand that. WHY hold the irrational belief in the first place? Because it gives a warm fuzzy feeling doesn't seem to justify abandoning rationality (as far as this one issue goes) to me. If the god does nothing, says nothing, and influences nothing, it might as well be nothing. In fact, it is nothing. What does it mean to say "I believe in god"? What are the implications? How does it affect anyone's life?

They aren't abandoning rationality as this issue goes, because there is no rationality to abandon in the first place.

Such a belief is simply comforting. That's all.

Both of which amount to "how can you disprove god?". To which the obvious answer is "I don't have to". The person stating belief in god is making a claim by implication. If they believe in god, they must think god exists. Otherwise they are not believing in god, they are pretending to do so. Therefore, as with any other extraordinary claim, the onus is on them to support that claim. If they don't want to, that's fine. But I don't have to do the opposite either, and the default position/provisional conclusion of "doesn't exist" holds true. If as you say they are being irrational with regard to god, then their belief is meaningless to anyone but them and open to criticism of the sort being levelled in this thread.

Discussion over then.

Nope. That's precisely what they don't amount to. Sagan's point was not "how can you disprove god", nor was it that Arroway was trying to prove her love for her father. His point was that there are simply things that fall outside the scientific scope.

Rationality. Which we've dealt with.

There is no difference. In both cases, there is no evidence to go with.

And I see as a desirable thing to apply in as many areas of one's life as possible. But see my question above - in your own strict definition of the term scepticism (which I accept is valid), are the theistic sceptics not being at least as unsceptical as me in siding with belief over non-belief before any evidence has come to light?

Answered above.

No. I haven't seen the film either. I was aware of the dialogue you quoted, and had seen a similar philosophical "consider the lily" style retort elsewhere, and wasn't convinced by it there either. As another poster said, it smacks of cop-out and condescension on both sides, as I countered to you, the two concepts are not directly analogous. One is a measurable product of natural phenomena that has an imagined component, the other was once thought to have measurable products but is now held despite discreditation as an entirely imaginary concept.

Read the book. It's worth it. You will hopefully understand credo consolans a lot better.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, he is certainly not included in the "skeptic we", no. Now that would be all "Twilight Zone" But that was the actual point with that post yes, that even if the "skeptic we" is a very big part of JREF, the JREF forum on the whole is actually not a "skeptic we" but a "human we". Which means that we have to take the good with the bad, and the bad with the good if we want to keep the freedom of the forum, and the diversity, that I, in the long run, think is basically good for the dynamic of the forum. Even better that they are shown in the open if they are dangerous.

Quite so.

I will take your stance if convinced that it is the right one, but I am doubtful and lean toward the other. Actually I think you should start a new thread with this question (if someone haven't already, I just woke up and this is the first I see here) becasue I guess it is a rather essential question. This is two very different ways to be skeptical in, and I can see both ways having its "fans" around here. It does not seem to be a settled question.

It's a question that has been discussed again and again, in many threads and posts over the years.

It's probably easier to grab a few books and start reading.

 

[CFLarsen]

Isn't that how we know that it's irrational?

Well, yes, but that's not what I was getting at.

You can't criticize someone's belief for being irrational, if they don't claim that their belief is rational. In this case, they already know that they are - but they are irrational in a non-evidential way.

 

[articulett]

I think there are a lot of people who assert that theism is as rational as atheism... and that the two are equally rational conclusions. Isn't Claus doing that? So is Bri and Nosho:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3159431#post3159431

I just think they are pretending that because there are two options--both are equally likely. That is sloppy reasoning. It's clearly not true for pink unicorns, Zeus, or anything that differs from the imaginary. As for those things that don't differ from the imaginary-- it's rational to conclude they are imaginary or at least as "irrational" as subjective feelings and preferences and superstitions, and illusions. Skepticism doesn't mean "ever on the fence"-- it's about allowing the evidence to lead you to the most likely explanation-- and an absent of evidence IS evidence that something doesn't exist... just as the presence of evidence is evidence that it does. It's not proof. But it's the best tools we have for coming to conclusions about the reality we all share.

People are free to believe as they please. But it's incorrect to presume that belief in a god is as rational as a lack of belief unless you can say the same for pink unicorns and Zeus. It's also incorrect to state that the rational or skeptical position is "on the fence"-- although a skeptic concedes that you can't disprove god, that is not an impediment in saying "it doesn't exist"-- because only an iota of measurable evidence would be needed to show otherwise. I think it's perfectly fine to categorize religion as woo until or unless some evidence becomes available to show that it is not. If someone's god is real, what does it matter if the majority of skeptics don't believe in it? There's no requirement one way or the other and you can't force people to believe or not believe.

Mothers exist. Mothers love. To conclude your mother loves you is a conclusion people could make based on plenty of evidence. Moreover, humans define all those terms and determine what love is and so forth. That's not a fact based claim--it's a claim about feelings that is open to interpretation--different words mean different things to different people. Saying a god exists is is a meaningless phrase until or unless you define that god. If you say "god is love" or "god is isness" then everyone has to agree your god "exists"-- we just don't call those things "god". If your god answers prayers, that's a god that can and has been tested and fails.

People are free to call themselves whatever they want--Christians, atheists, skeptics, etc. They don't get a free pass on their woo just because it's about god. If they don't want their faith probed or don't want to be made to wonder if their belief in a god is irrational--then they shouldn't discuss their beliefs here unless they are stating them as beliefs. They certainly shouldn't imply that others should think that theism or being "on the fence" is as rational as concluding all gods are the product of human imagination. The latter is a conclusion based on ever increasing evidence. Theism and being on the fence are conclusions based in ignorance, feelings, faith, confirmation bias, anecdote, fear, etc. Either some god exists somewhere or it doesn't. The evidence points in only one direction as far as I can tell. And it's the same direction as the evidence for fairies.

 

[Belz...]

How do you manage to write huge posts like that all the time ? I get bored writing single sentences !!!

 

[articulett]

How do you manage to write huge posts like that all the time ? I get bored writing single sentences !!!

I don't know. I must stop. It's probably my brains clever way of allowing me to procrastinate and avoid all the chores I should be doing. Damn-- that actual reality thing-- always demanding my attention. Damn, Damn. See I can tell myself I'm sharing cool info. while, in actuality I'm avoiding cleaning cat boxes, raking leaves, shopping, etc.

When things really pile up, I tell myself, "it could be worse... I might at times be an internet addict... I am, however, not a drug addict. Nor do I have one of those shopping compulsions". (As far as vices go, this can't be the worst... what can I say... it's in my genes... I evolved to be an information processor, replicator, recombiner... and I'm always fooled into thinking that someone is just about to "get it" )

 

[Big Les]

I was addressing skeptigirl's etc

I must apologise to you and to Skeptigirl for inadvertently butting in on several points beyond the one I declared - I quoted Claus' post in its entirety, and rather rushed my response, forgetting that it wasn't all aimed at me.

Love has to be extrovert? Why? A silent love isn't love? The more apparent the love is, the stronger it is?

No, the more real it is. However you define it, it comes down to an expression of affection, familiarity etc between two very real people with shared genetics and/or experiences who are part of a social construct. It's all observable, it's all meaningful. This god is neither, hence your analogy doesn't stand. But I will take your advice and read "Contact" in an attempt to better understand. My current speculation is that the placing of religious belief outside criticism is simply a cop-out designed to allow us all to get along better on an earthly basis, since our beliefs are not likely to conflict unless we do try to criticise them. It's actually quite pragmatic when you think about it, but it isn't terribly honest.

I'm not being the devil's advocate.

I am the devil.

Of that I have no doubt.

Originally Posted by Me

I wasn't claiming that you had, sorry. I was assuming that as we were talking about an unverifiable untestable god, there would be no evidence. But it then occurred to me that we can't actually know whether there might be evidence in future, making your claim that the god in question is unverifiable and untestable invalid. If god is notionally verifiable and testable, well then, so are psychics, and sceptics typically assume that psychics don't exist, despite it being possible that one day, evidence will emerge.

We can say now that there is no intervening god, because there is no evidence.

So it's sceptical to disbelieve in god, provisionally. It follows therefore that unsceptical to believe in one.

We can't say anything about the future.

Of course not. None of us are psychic. In fact, come to think of it, "we can't say now that there are no psychics, because there is no evidence. We can't say anything about the future."

Go back and read my example of the rocks falling out of the sky.

I really don't need to, thanks, I can grasp the concept of things changing over time. Even if it is spectacularly unlikely that this imaginary god will suddenly do a Monty Python.

Maybe precisely because such a god is not evidential? Credo consolans?

"I believe (in god) because it comforts me". How is that different from "I believe in psychics because it comforts me"? Literally the only difference I can see is that those believing in psychics lack the guile to withhold claims that sceptics can debunk.

But you are criticizing them for how you view their belief in a non-existing god. You can't expect them to think that it is rational.

I admit that as, in my mind, rational = good, irrational = bad, did assume that theist sceptics would consider such a belief rational on some level, simply because of the apparent inconsistency of disbelieving in everything else paranormal. I cannot fathom holding an irrational belief simply because it provides comfort. That's just kidding yourself.

That's one. Who else?

The other specific individual, having reviewed the thread, would be Fnord. But I'm not clear on why it matters. I'm not out to character-assassinate either of those two, and I respect their stance on other matters all the time. They are no "worse" sceptics overall than anyone else, least of all me. But we are primarily arguing hypothetically, or at least I thought we were. My desire to see the theist sceptics come back and contribute is just that - a desire. Until they do, I have only the hypothetical proposition of the OP, and Cleon and Fnord's posts to go on. Ironically the more you and I play ring-a-ring-rosie, the more disparaging I appear toward their beliefs. Ho hum.

They aren't abandoning rationality as this issue goes, because there is no rationality to abandon in the first place.

Nothing more than semantics. Assuming they hold rationality in esteem to begin with, they are, in the case of god, abandoning it. You know perfectly well what I meant.

Such a belief is simply comforting. That's all.

That seems to be the size of it, yes. I wonder if I am able to sincerely believe that you are in fact writing all your posts whilst wearing a big pink fluffy rabbit outfit, because that comforts me, I will be thought of as being sceptical about your choice of Internet-related attire.

Nope. That's precisely what they don't amount to. Sagan's point was not "how can you disprove god", nor was it that Arroway was trying to prove her love for her father. His point was that there are simply things that fall outside the scientific scope.

Fine, but "Outside the scientific scope" doesn't equate to both belief and disbelief being equally sceptically valid. "They" are making a leap of faith without evidence, "we" are standing on the starting line waiting for any evidence that might show up.

There is no difference. In both cases, there is no evidence to go with.

You've already stated that "We can say now that there is no intervening god, because there is no evidence." If we can do that, then there clearly is a difference. The difference being that "we" have a reason to disbelieve, "they" have no reason at all. "We" are maintaining scepticism about this one issue, "they" are not, regardless of how sceptical either side is about all sorts of other issues (no true sceptic etc etc).

Read the book. It's worth it. You will hopefully understand credo consolans a lot better.

I will read "Contact" Claus, but I cannot see how a reason as weak as "it gets me through the day" justifies an irrational belief. I really hope the book tells me something more than you have done, no offence.

Now, re-reading the thread, I spotted this from you:

The question is:

Is it possible to be religious and not claim evidence of your god(s)?

I would love to hear answers to this question, because I cannot see how a god that is not capable of doing anything, does not communicate, does not interfere in earthly matters one iota, is not worthy of belief.

 

[Darat]

I've thought up a new word and label that will help with all this soul searching and semantic twisting and turning - from now on I suggest we adopt my new label for everyone, the label I've come up with is "people" (pronounced peep'l).

 

[CFLarsen]

I must apologise to you and to Skeptigirl for inadvertently butting in on several points beyond the one I declared - I quoted Claus' post in its entirety, and rather rushed my response, forgetting that it wasn't all aimed at me.

No worries.

No, the more real it is. However you define it, it comes down to an expression of affection, familiarity etc between two very real people with shared genetics and/or experiences who are part of a social construct. It's all observable, it's all meaningful. This god is neither, hence your analogy doesn't stand.

Absolutely disagree. Unrequited love has led to some of the most hailed examples of real love, especially in literature.

But I will take your advice and read "Contact" in an attempt to better understand. My current speculation is that the placing of religious belief outside criticism is simply a cop-out designed to allow us all to get along better on an earthly basis, since our beliefs are not likely to conflict unless we do try to criticise them. It's actually quite pragmatic when you think about it, but it isn't terribly honest.

It is definitely honest, as long as they don't claim evidence of their god, and they acknowledge this.

I wasn't claiming that you had, sorry. I was assuming that as we were talking about an unverifiable untestable god, there would be no evidence. But it then occurred to me that we can't actually know whether there might be evidence in future, making your claim that the god in question is unverifiable and untestable invalid. If god is notionally verifiable and testable, well then, so are psychics, and sceptics typically assume that psychics don't exist, despite it being possible that one day, evidence will emerge.

No, it doesn't make it invalid. We can say that X is unverifiable and untestable today. What we can't say is that it will always be unverifiable and untestable.

So it's sceptical to disbelieve in god, provisionally. It follows therefore that unsceptical to believe in one.

Not an untestable, unverifiable, non-interventionist god.

Of course not. None of us are psychic. In fact, come to think of it, "we can't say now that there are no psychics, because there is no evidence. We can't say anything about the future."

Yes, we can now that there is no psychics, because there is no evidence.

You may have mistyped something there.

I really don't need to, thanks, I can grasp the concept of things changing over time. Even if it is spectacularly unlikely that this imaginary god will suddenly do a Monty Python.

So was the concept of rocks falling out of the sky.

Or, take the example of Tycho Brahe and his discovery of the first supernova in 1572. It absolutely stunned everyone, because up until then, it was firmly believed - and backed by evidence - that, while the planets moved relative to the stars and each other, the stars themselves were fixed, and eternal.

"I believe (in god) because it comforts me". How is that different from "I believe in psychics because it comforts me"? Literally the only difference I can see is that those believing in psychics lack the guile to withhold claims that sceptics can debunk.

The difference is that psychics claim evidence of their abilities. Shawn Hornbeck was dead, remember? Opal Jo Jennings was sold into slavery in Japan, remember? The Sago Miners were alive, remember? All psychic predictions made by a psychic.

I admit that as, in my mind, rational = good, irrational = bad, did assume that theist sceptics would consider such a belief rational on some level, simply because of the apparent inconsistency of disbelieving in everything else paranormal. I cannot fathom holding an irrational belief simply because it provides comfort. That's just kidding yourself.

That's what you feel.

Are you sure you don't hold any beliefs because you are comforted by them? Think hard. Don't answer now, but think about it.

Nothing more than semantics. Assuming they hold rationality in esteem to begin with, they are, in the case of god, abandoning it. You know perfectly well what I meant.

No, they are not - if they don't claim evidence.

That seems to be the size of it, yes. I wonder if I am able to sincerely believe that you are in fact writing all your posts whilst wearing a big pink fluffy rabbit outfit, because that comforts me, I will be thought of as being sceptical about your choice of Internet-related attire.

It doesn't need to be all that...hmmm...imaginative. It can simply be that someone, somewhere, is watching over you. That alone can help some a great deal.

Fine, but "Outside the scientific scope" doesn't equate to both belief and disbelief being equally sceptically valid. "They" are making a leap of faith without evidence, "we" are standing on the starting line waiting for any evidence that might show up.

But then, you are not disbelieving it.

You've already stated that "We can say now that there is no intervening god, because there is no evidence." If we can do that, then there clearly is a difference. The difference being that "we" have a reason to disbelieve, "they" have no reason at all. "We" are maintaining scepticism about this one issue, "they" are not, regardless of how sceptical either side is about all sorts of other issues (no true sceptic etc etc).

See right above.

I will read "Contact" Claus, but I cannot see how a reason as weak as "it gets me through the day" justifies an irrational belief. I really hope the book tells me something more than you have done, no offence.

No worries - it's a great book, with a lot of very good points.

 

[articulett]

I've thought up a new word and label that will help with all this soul searching and semantic twisting and turning - from now on I suggest we adopt my new label for everyone, the label I've come up with is "people" (pronounced peep'l).

Are you trying to imply that only homo sapients can be skeptics?

 

[Darat]

How dare you suggest I'm a speciesist ! My cats are very sceptical!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Throws caution to the wind and takes on Claus against her better judgment....

...You misunderstand. I am not saying that we cannot reach a provisional conclusion based on the evidence.....Because you can't disprove gods, exactly the same way you can't disprove invisible pink unicorns.

You are falling into the same trap as those who once claimed that rocks couldn't fall from the sky. Your mind is closed to the possibility of gods and unicorns.

They're not claiming any form of proof. Faith, and all that....

OK, guys, one point at a time here.

I have no issue with the ideal science here. I am well aware of the technicality of being unable to disprove the negative. And sorry, Claus, but you are drawing the very false conclusion I have a closed mind. I have an open mind, you just don't get my point.

If you want to claim one cannot disprove gods exist then you have to add the qualifier that it is only because you cannot prove a negative, and you have to be talking about a god which doesn't interact with the Universe in any unnatural way (the god who set it all up from the start and everything just happens from there) or the god who covers his tracks. Neither of those descriptions fit the gods most people believe in. And once you start describing the god you cannot test for rather than testing for the god described, then you are talking about something akin to invisible pink unicorns.

So fine, science always has an open door for the as yet unknown. I don't consider that the equivalent of being agnostic.

The reason I do not consider that the equivalent of being agnostic is because when one looks at the use of the term, agnostic, one does not use the term to mean one is agnostic about invisible pink unicorns. Instead, the practical (as opposed to the technical) definition of the term agnostic is to say, "I'm not going to say beliefs about gods are false".

And in some cases, the skeptic goes even further and says, "Beliefs based on evidence and beliefs based on faith are compatible. I believe in my God and I believe I can exclude that belief from the evidence bases I claim my skeptical beliefs come from", (using various rationalizations we need not go into here).

I am not arguing the technical definition people here don't realize they are interchaging with the practical definition of agnostic. I am only arguing the point using the practical definition of agnosticism.

Regarding the True Scotsman, Belz, we are talking about a definition here, not a value judgment. If you want to define a true skeptic differently than I do, then support your reasoning how a true skeptic can include a blind spot for certain god beliefs. If your definition is based on the technical definition of agnostic, and you truly equate your god concept in that case with the concept of invisible pink unicorns, then we do not disagree. I just happen to be skeptical that very many people are really using that invisible pink unicorn equivalent god concept when they identify themselves as agnostic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On to the next point(s)

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
....Once you claim a god does anything, that becomes testable. Only a god which doesn't interact with the Universe or covers his tracks is untestable. And then you have the equivalent of an invisible pink unicorn.

If your criticism has to have any value, you have to point to some concrete example of a believer in god who claim that their unverified-and-unverifiable god is equally rational. Otherwise, you are simply erecting a strawman.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Really? God loves you, answers your prayers, brings hurricanes upon gay people and cities which accept them, ... those certainly seem verifiable to me.

"God loves you" is verifiable? How so?

So you think allowing your children to burn to death in a fire while you scream for help unable to reach them is an act of love? Of course you failed to mention one should most certainly be able to test if prayers are answered. Either they are or there is no difference in those prayed for and those not prayed for. And I think we could show there is no greater likelihood of a hurricane hitting a coastal town in the Gulf of Mexico that has more homosexuals per capita than one with less.

Your reference is to an untestable god. God beliefs are testable. Anyone can describe an untestable god. But the gods in the usual religions don't fit that description.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
So if you only believe in the god who isn't there you are still a skeptic? This is where you fall into the trap I keep talking about. You maintain the idea one has this 'faith based belief' and singles out certain religious beliefs as somehow outside the realm of science. And do remember we are only talking about certain religious beliefs, Pele and Zeus are not included, they aren't even called religions, they are called myths. What is it about certain god beliefs that elevate those beliefs to the status of "we don't know" yet does not elevate other god beliefs to the same status?

Is belief in Thor not a religion?

If you re-read more carefully what I said you would see I am calling those 'myths' religions in reality. I said people try to differentiate their religious beliefs from others' myths, but there is no difference.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
And taking the next logical step, what is it about certain god beliefs that elevate those beliefs to the status of "we don't know" yet does not elevate other woo beliefs to the same status?

What other woo beliefs?

All non-evidence based beliefs, be it a religion or a superstition.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
There's a comparison here, Claus, but not the one you are using. Love can be tested, measured, and explained in a number of different ways. I can look at the biology, the neurochemistry, the sociology and/or the psychology involved. Love is explainable and testable predictions can be made. It is a real thing.

Religious beliefs are the same. They can be looked at through biology, maybe neurochemistry, certainly through psychology and sociology. You can make testable predictions such as, modern marketing methods are likely to increase church attendance, or, beliefs formed in childhood are difficult to change later. But you cannot find evidence god beliefs have anything to do with actual gods. Beliefs are real, gods are not.

How do you tell if a mother loves her child? Can a mother abstain from hugging her child and still love it?

Come on Claus, just because the concept is complex doesn't make it unmeasurable or undefinable. Is your world really that simplified that you cannot understand how a complex concept such as love can be examined using objective criteria?