Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[articulett]

I would just like to say that I have just recieved a message from the Easter Bunny supporters, and they are saying:

Next thing you know the conspiracy theorists will be saying the same thing.

 

[-Fran-]

Next thing you know the conspiracy theorists will be saying the same thing.

Hee Last time I heard they were all saying it, ALL of them. From the tooth fairy supporters to the... whatever supporters

ETA:
Except the supporters of truth actually. They are saying, be skeptical of subjective experiences and anecdotal evidences and so on... and keep to the hard facts!

 

[Pardalis]

I'm an apatheist agnostic, and a skeptic, does that make me a bad skeptic?

 

[Hokulele]

I'm an apatheist agnostic, and a skeptic, does that make me a bad skeptic?

Putting that all in one (English) sentence makes you a bad something or other.

 

[Pardalis]

Putting that all in one (English) sentence makes you a bad something or other.

In other words, that makes me French...

 

[CFLarsen]

Throws caution to the wind and takes on Claus against her better judgment....OK, guys, one point at a time here.

Argue the argument, not the arguer.

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.

I don't have to add the cannot-prove-a-negative qualifier, because it is not something I should have to do.

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".

You don't need to be agnostic to say that. That's a universally true statement.

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).

No, that's precisely what we need specifiy the rationalizations.

We can, in fact, say that beliefs based on evidence and beliefs based on faith are compatible, as long as the beliefs based on faith are not in conflict with the beliefs based on evidence.

On to the next point(s)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?

Whoa, whoa. We weren't talking about acts of love. We were talking about love, period. Love doesn't have to be acted out to be 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.

No, I didn't "fail" to mention it. It isn't a "failure" on my part, if you want to bring up new aspects.

People don't always pray for something tangible. They also pray for peace of mind. That can happen for many reasons, not all provable. Time heals all wounds, and in time, they may find peace. If they want to attribute that to a non-evidential god, fine with me. It is no different than them attributing their peace of mind to the love of their dead father.

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.

And, as I have made blindingly clear many many times over the years, those god-claims are subject to skeptical scrutiny.

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.

There may not be to you, but Thor is very much a religious god, at least in these parts of the world. Asatru is a religion to some in the Nordic countries.

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

If they are non-evidence based, why not elevate them to "we don't know"?

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?

I'm not saying it isn't unmeasurable or undefinable.

As with the Contact example, does not being able to prove to someone else that you love your family make that love any less real to you or make you any less a sceptic?

It doesn't.

You are simply substituting "irrational" for "faith based" beliefs. Neither fits the skeptical model.

I'm not saying they do. I'm saying that they are interchangeable.

But there is evidence. You and many others using your argument ignore the evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that people's beliefs in gods are not the result of actual encounters with gods. The only way to have an untestable god is to alter the usual description of gods.

Try to read what I say. I do not ignore the evidence if it is there. However, I am talking about the cases where there is no evidence, and no evidence is claimed.

No, but going from the scene in the movie you are undoubtedly referring to, I didn't buy the argument. Foster had an anecdotal experience she at first had no evidence for (later there was the 20 minute time elapsed on the tape). The whole discussion was simply about asking someone to believe something you have no evidence for except your personal experience. Science wouldn't have accepted Foster's anecdote either.

Not 20 minutes, but 18 hours. And the one I was referring to was not the end scene at the congressional hearing, but when Arroway sits with Joss (can you prove the sexual tension between them?) and she tells him about Occam's Razor, scientific evidence vs. religious beliefs.

Read the book. It is far more elaborate than the movie - although the movie has some amazing special effects.

Yes I can. I can point out the blind spot and as long as they admit they have one, we're good. But if they claim that faith based beliefs are compatible with evidence based beliefs because they somehow co-exist in separate places, I can point out the hypocrisy.

And if the faith based beliefs are not in conflict with the evidence based beliefs?

This is sloppy theistic type thinking again. I think that we can all agree that there is one reality-- one truth that doesn't depend on whether people believe it or not. The story of how humans came to be is a single story. There is one truth. We can use the evidence to fill in the details as best we can, but iwe can't make up evidence if we actually want to understand the facts.

Just a moment. While Evolution is a fact, it doesn't mean that the theory of Evolution is the one truth.

A skeptic is aware of the ways people fool themselves. You can be aware of how Scientologists or various cults or Sylvia Groupies or Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses are lead astray. But you don't imagine the same for yourself in regards to your similar beliefs. That is what is nonskeptical! You know that it's very human to believe the stuff that people told you when you were growing up-- and to have feelings perceptions that are misleading when compared to reality or given perspective. But you don't consider that you may have been a victim of such when you make claims about a god and you are using confirmation bias when you conclude your god (however nebulously defined) is more likely to exist than Zeus.
...
And we know that Zeus probably only existed in peoples' minds, right?

Not so fast. Zeus did exist to those who pointed to thunder and lightning as evidence of his beliefs. That's why there is a huge difference between belief in Zeus and Credo Consolans.

We know that schizophrenic delusions only exist in peoples' minds. We know that Scientology is a human made religion.

All religions are human made.

We know that humans have been detecting agency in things they don't understand for eons (storms are formed by angry gods) and then confirming that bias (our crops grew well because we sacrificed a virgin-- let's do two next time...) If your god is real-- then why are you a "whipping post" when you discuss him? When I talk about the facts of evolution-- the fact don't change just because my audience doesn't understand them. I don't feel like a whipping post because of their ignorance. I may work to help them understand, or I may decide it's not worth my time. But labeling yourself a whipping post is like labeling yourself a martyr-- you're insinuating there is something good about faith without showing what that something is... or why you came to believe in your particular brand. The facts about evolution don't change and I don't need others to believe or find that truth rational in order to not feel like a whipping post. I think theists use this "you guys are being mean" blather to keep their delusion alive for themselves... to make their god off limits for questioning. To make those who doubt their god feel bad just as their gurus taught them.

Oy, vey. Yes, the "facts about evolution" can change, if we find a new and better theory to explain those facts.

You have to understand that while evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is not.

But facts are true whether people believe in them or not. That would be true of god as well... and zeus and pink unicorns and schizophrenic delusions and you and me and the spherical nature of the earth. You are confusing fact with opinions about facts. The facts about such things are the same. 2+2=4 no matter how much someone's subjective self tells them it isn't so.

You are not calling religious beliefs schizophrenic delusions, are you?

Girl, what I'm saying is that there are NO true skeptics. We ALL have blind spots. The thing is to minimise them.

If there are no TRUE (the TRUE has to be in caps, not NO ) skeptics, would you not call someone a skeptic, if he acknowledged that there was no evidence of his only "blind spot"?

 

[Belz...]

(And I remember Balki)

Ah! I knew someone would understand me!

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure that I would say that such evidence against the existence of a god/gods is any stronger than saying "we know people from the beginning of civilization have worshipped gods" as evidence for a god/gods. Neither is much more than a small piece in a much larger jigsaw.

I have no idea how one would go about proving and explaining "blue" to someone to whom the concept has little meaning and who only was prepared to accept tangible or measurable evidence. Yet, from personal experience, a sighted person knows "blue" exists.

Except that colour-blind people can certainly analyse the evidence and come to the conclusion that "blue" exists.

Absolutely, and the earth was (kind of) spherical with a circumference of (roughly) 40,000km before humans were in any position to measure such things. Just because it couldn't be measured didn't make it false.

I think you are confusing measurable in practice and measurable in theory.

I think you're working with an assumption that theists believe what they do based only on feelings and speculation.

Of course they are. Their "proof" always boils down to them "feeling" it true.

 

[Belz...]

Nonsense. One can have many errors in ones' knowledge base and draw conclusions based on inadequate evidence and all that. But a "blind spot" in my use of the term here refers to non-evidence based beliefs one excludes from the evidence based paradigm.

That's how I understood it.

Not everyone believes in woo. Give an example of what you are referring to.

That's not what I said. I said we all have blind spots that make us believe in things without evidence, and I don't mean "woo".

An example, eh ? I think the Christian skeptics mentioned at the begining of the thread qualify. Or are you saying that no Christian can be a skeptic ?

They are hypocrites if they claim they believe without evidence.

Not if evidence isn't important to them in that case. Pascal's Wager, though nonsensical to me, seems to be one reason for this.

Besides, as I said earlier, we all "believe" in things without actual evidence. Many of those beliefs may be rational, but they are far from certain.

We seem to be using a different definition of blind spot. The particular blind spot I am referring to here is one of hypocrisy, not one of simple error.

In that case you are defining skeptic in a way that suits you. Have fun with that.

 

[Belz...]

If there are no TRUE (the TRUE has to be in caps, not NO ) skeptics, would you not call someone a skeptic, if he acknowledged that there was no evidence of his only "blind spot"?

Well, isn't that precisely what the debate is about ?

 

[Big Les]

I keep seeing this damned love analogy, and my own rebuttals thus far seem to have been ignored. One last time; "love" as a feeling is nothing more than imagination. "Love" doesn't exist. Just like god, as pure imagination, doesn't exist.

BUT, unlike god, even imagined "love" is a psychological result of real, observable stimuli in the real world. And mostly, this can be observed or even measured. The person can articulate their feeling in speech, poetry, prose, tone of voice, body language, physiological changes etc, and the rest of us can observe both those stimuli (i.e. other people, interactions, and events) and those reactions. This allows us derive at least some level of supporting evidence for that person's feeling even if the person does nothing overt to demonstrate that love. Not to a high standard of evidence perhaps, but evidence nonetheless, which is 100% more evidence than there would be for god. It's especially easy if it's sexual love that they imagine, because physiological changes will betray their feelings of sexual attraction, but we can even go some way toward measuring platonic love, assuming they claim it, and assuming we can observe the human interactions that might be influenced by these feelings.

Now, perhaps the person claims love, but is able to keep hidden all stimuli for, and reactions to this. I.e. does not interact at all with the target of their affections, and keeps secret their identity, keeps any articulation of their feelings entirely safe from outside scrutiny. In this case, then all that's left is irrational imagination. No different than the credo consolans principle that CFL talks about.

God, therefore, amounts to the irrational imagination of one individual. If this is admitted, then that's certainly intellectually honest of them. But it's still an inconsistent blindspot in my view, and one that the sceptic is keeping safe from their own scrutiny, presumably because they don't want to lose the ability to fool themselves. Yet surely if they do recognise that it's a case of credo consolans, they know that they're kidding themselves. So how do they maintain this belief, and to what end? This last assumes, of course, that being aware of self-deception destroys the effect, which from what I've read of placebo and what I've considered of self-deception and compartmentalisation in general, may not be entirely true.

 

[Belz...]

I keep seeing this damned love analogy, and my own rebuttals thus far seem to have been ignored. One last time; "love" as a feeling is nothing more than imagination. "Love" doesn't exist. Just like god, as pure imagination, doesn't exist.

Of course "love" exists. There are little molecules running inside your body telling you to like certain people, and there are neural connections in your brain telling you that you prefer the people you spend time with.

Otherwise you're back to Interesting Ian saying that "blue" doesn't exist.

 

[Big Les]

Of course "love" exists. There are little molecules running inside your body telling you to like certain people, and there are neural connections in your brain telling you that you prefer the people you spend time with.

Otherwise you're back to Interesting Ian saying that "blue" doesn't exist.

I suppose you could argue definitions, but that way "drumstick/leg" lies... So fair enough, I was being too literal there. Ironically though, I started out arguing that you can provide evidence for love in terms of physiological reactions, and CFL denied this saying that they could be faked. Since this get-out covers a multitude of sins, I moved away from defending the detectibility of "love" and focussed upon the other key difference;

Regardless, for me the key difference is the stimulus; in the case of love it's external, real, and quantifiable. The same can't be said of god - it's wholly a mental construct - an imagining.

I think that's an important enough distinction to render the comparison pretty weak, but what about detecting the molecules, the connections that you refer to? Isn't that at least theoretically possible? Unlike god? It seems that we might be getting there in a way that is currently impossible for god:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/820857.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/health/psychology/31love.html

 

[Belz...]

No argument, there. If God existed, not only could there be evidence, in principle, for his existence, but there WOULD.

I just don't think it's fair to say that people who believe in god (or any other woo) aren't skeptics because there are levels to being a skeptic and no one is a 100% skeptic.

 

[-Fran-]

There may not be to you, but Thor is very much a religious god, at least in these parts of the world. Asatru is a religion to some in the Nordic countries.

I'm a bit lost now

Asatro is indeed a serious religion for some people in the Nordic countries, also in Northen Europe on the whole, and there are even groups in North America, I think. It's a very marginal religion, and many are just posers who doesn't really believe a thing, but just want to have cool viking parties. Of those who are serious though, it has been my impression that most of them do in fact not believe in the Norse gods literally, but see them symbolically in different ways. Are you really saying that most of the Asatro practitioners really literally believe that the rolling sound of thunder is made by a real and physical Tor, driving his chariot drawn by the (resurrected) goats Tandgrisner and Tandgniostr over the skies. And that lightning is made by Tor striking out with Mjölner? And that they have not heard of the scientific explanation of thunder/honestly does not believe in it?

And even if so is the case, how does it follow that Zeus then is not also a god connected with thunder and lightning? I mean, talking about Asatro does not make what Skeptigirl said wrong.

Besides, I have a few times run into people on the net who claimed they are "Hellenistic Pagans", that is to say, they worship the Ancient Greek gods. I never got to ask those I run into if their belief in those gods are literal, or symbolic in some way, though, and haven't investigated further. But there are such people as well...

...so, what did all this have to do with the topic of the OP anyway?

 

[-Fran-]

I just don't think it's fair to say that people who believe in god (or any other woo) aren't skeptics because there are levels to being a skeptic and no one is a 100% skeptic.

I agree to a certain extent, but as I said before, for me personally (I admit that's just how I see it) it isn't the fact that they aren't skeptical about everything (100% skeptics) because as you say, who are? It is the fact that they are deliberately setting a part aside that is exempt from honest self-scrutiny (and this is especially weird to me since they demand this self-scrutiny of others). Which makes them less skeptic.

Whereas a "more true" skeptic would be more honest about looking at themselves and their possible beliefs and misconceptions. You're more skeptic, I think, if you agree with yourself to fight your own "holy cows" as best as you can. Those skeptics have set aside a holy cow, albeit it may be a tiny one that really doesn't matter much in how they live their 'real-life' and 'on-line' skeptical lives, but they still have put a holy cow in a corner that they are not intending to ever look closer at, it seems.

This is the their right. Just makes me wonder.

ETA:
It isn't the level of skepticism that counts, but how willing and honest you are to work with yourself on these things, in spite of what level you are on. I think.

 

[articulett]

The fundamental difference between Science and Religion is that there's one Science, and any number of Religions. Which reflects there being one observable Universe, and many human imaginations.

Capel Dodger

10-21-2007



I wish I'd said it... but I'm proud to be a member of a forum with such eloquent posters. What is said about religions above could also be said about gods, right?

Don't worry Claus... I know that the "theory of evolution" is not a fact-- it is the best explanation for the facts we observe-- the facts that are the same for everyone no matter what they believe. Scientific Theories are explanations... they are frameworks which must be altered to accommodate the facts andor discarded when they cannot. "God" is a different beast. Evolution does a stellar job of both explaining the facts and accommodating new ones as they emerge.

I care about the facts. All the other stuff (opinions, beliefs, "blue", semantics) are just methods of obscuring or illuminating that understanding. There appear to be no facts supporting the notion that any sort of god exists except in the imagination of humans. I'd love to see evidence of such... but I don't. Most skeptics don't. Most claims about such sound similar to the claims other brands of woo use to prop up their beliefs. There is nothing that would come close to passing the MDC in regards to any "invisible entities". And yet people believe with such fervor. It appears that most skeptics are skeptical of all such entities... a few make exceptions for the ones they've been indoctrinated to believe in or "need"--the ones that give them comfort. That is what it looks like to me, anyhow.

 

[articulett]

Here are Sam Harris' steps for believing in God:

In support of this noble enterprise, every religion has created a black market for irrationality, where people of like minds can trade transparently bad reasons in support of their religious beliefs, without the threat of criticism. You, too, can enter this economy of false knowledge and self-deception. The following method has worked for billions, and it will work for you:

How to Believe in God
Six Easy Steps

1. First, you must want to believe in God.
2. Next, understand that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.
5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of “faith.”
6. Return to 2.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, isn't that precisely what the debate is about ?

Maybe.

So....would you?

Now, perhaps the person claims love, but is able to keep hidden all stimuli for, and reactions to this. I.e. does not interact at all with the target of their affections, and keeps secret their identity, keeps any articulation of their feelings entirely safe from outside scrutiny. In this case, then all that's left is irrational imagination. No different than the credo consolans principle that CFL talks about.

Absolutely not. Unrequited love is also love.

God, therefore, amounts to the irrational imagination of one individual. If this is admitted, then that's certainly intellectually honest of them. But it's still an inconsistent blindspot in my view, and one that the sceptic is keeping safe from their own scrutiny, presumably because they don't want to lose the ability to fool themselves. Yet surely if they do recognise that it's a case of credo consolans, they know that they're kidding themselves. So how do they maintain this belief, and to what end? This last assumes, of course, that being aware of self-deception destroys the effect, which from what I've read of placebo and what I've considered of self-deception and compartmentalisation in general, may not be entirely true.

How is it inconsistent, skeptically, if skepticism only deals with the testable?

Ironically though, I started out arguing that you can provide evidence for love in terms of physiological reactions, and CFL denied this saying that they could be faked. Since this get-out covers a multitude of sins, I moved away from defending the detectibility of "love" and focussed upon the other key difference;

Demonstrations of love could be faked.

Since I didn't deny what you said I denied, it wasn't a get-out. Since it wasn't a get-out, you can continue defending the detectability of "love".

Why is unrequited love not love?

 

[Belz...]

I agree to a certain extent, but as I said before, for me personally (I admit that's just how I see it) it isn't the fact that they aren't skeptical about everything (100% skeptics) because as you say, who are? It is the fact that they are deliberately setting a part aside that is exempt from honest self-scrutiny (and this is especially weird to me since they demand this self-scrutiny of others). Which makes them less skeptic.

If they say that they have proof, I agree.