Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Big Les]

I think what's meant there is "if people want to pretend to believe in an abstract concept deriving from ancient and discredited notions about the real world, as long as they keep it to themselves, that's up to them".

I feel like I've followed the white rabbit down the rabbit hole and caught him with a naughty magazine.

 

[hammegk]

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

So you assert, and I suspect also have faith that such evidence should meet the requirements of scientific objectivity. What gives you that faith?

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'm with you 100% on that.

 

[-Fran-]

I think what's meant there is "if people want to pretend to believe in an abstract concept deriving from ancient and discredited notions about the real world, as long as they keep it to themselves, that's up to them".

I feel like I've followed the white rabbit down the rabbit hole and caught him with a naughty magazine.

Oh my

And it kind of took the "fight" out me But I am far from convinced that Claus is right on this one. Now, I really wish some of them would come by and explain what they actually think.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I've seen this distinction being made many times here on this thread, but, as I said in an earlier post, I don't quite understand why it would make such a huge difference. I admit I may be missing some vital point here somewhere, but as of yet (until I clearly see it) I am not convinced of this.

There's a difference, in my mind, between someone who believes in god because he chooses to believe in it, knowing full well that there is no evidence for it (and believing, I would think, that this places god beyond scientific inquiry, something I disagree with), and someone who claims to have logical reasons for believing in said god.

 

[Belz...]

The point I made has everything to do with a hypocritical blind spot, not a knowledge deficit blind spot.

But you do admit that the two are possible reasons for one's faith ? Also, I did mention Pascal's wager, and simple choice as two other reasons.

A Christian can only be a skeptic by excluding their religious beliefs from a skeptical analysis.

Yes, but to many people, there are some things that aren't worth skeptical analysis.

If you are not one of those Christian skeptics then perhaps you can at least see where I am coming from even if you don't choose to change your own position. Tell me how any skeptic can rationalize certain god beliefs while considering other god beliefs as woo?

I have no idea. I never had time to start doing that before I became an Atheist.

The problem I have with this explanation is beliefs are not quite that easily chosen. I just can't imagine a skeptic saying I will believe in god because the consequences are dire if I don't and minimal if I do.

Well, as I said, it depends on how strict a definition of "skeptic" we're working on.

The difference is skeptics' beliefs are open to change when new evidence emerges. A Christian skeptic has a whole set of beliefs excluded from any skeptical analysis.

Yes, because they feel there cannot be evidence for or against god. "You must believe without proof" is actually one of their mantra, at least in French.

 

[Belz...]

So you assert, and I suspect also have faith that such evidence should meet the requirements of scientific objectivity. What gives you that faith?

So far, everything that exists has left empirical proof behind. I don't think God is an exception, because if he covers his tracks that very act of covering it up will leave other traces.

Once God retreats to being completely beyond scientific inquiry, he automatically becomes useless. Then we can cut him into pieces with Occam.

 

[-Fran-]

There's a difference, in my mind, between someone who believes in god because he chooses to believe in it, knowing full well that there is no evidence for it (and believing, I would think, that this places god beyond scientific inquiry, something I disagree with), and someone who claims to have logical reasons for believing in said god.

Yes, of course there's a difference between these two types. There has never been a dispute about that there are different types. But both types have a belief that is not compatible with skepticism. And so, for the discussion of this thread, which is: Is a belief in god compatible with skepticism? It doesn't matter if you're the former or the latter type.

You're saying it yourself, the former type thinks that this places god beyond scientific inquiry, and you don't agree with that (and neither do I) - so this type is not the type that is compatible with skepticism. And the latter is obviously not either.

That's why I think that the discintion is of not much use to this question.

 

[Ranillon]

The difference is skeptics' beliefs are open to change when new evidence emerges. A Christian skeptic has a whole set of beliefs excluded from any skeptical analysis.

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT! Different people can come to different conclusions even when using the same data. Ultimately, we have to accept and respect that even if we think the other fellow is wrong.

Besides, that's not really what you are saying. Instead, what you are really stating is that you can't personally comprehend how someone can be a Christian and a skeptic. Subtle, but fundamental difference.

Confusing the two turns "skepticism" into an ideology, a set of beliefs that one must adhere to in order to be a "proper" member of the group. Do that and all you end up with is dueling ideologies. Others will turn against skepticism because they will see it (rightly in this particular case) as just one group insisting that it's version of the truth is better than theirs. The fact that it (probably) actually is will be completely beside the point.

Worse, it encourages skeptics to treat their beliefs as a sort of fait accompli where it is so "obvious" that their views are correct why should they really examine them? This is what every other group with a closely held belief system does. We shouldn't be so arrogant as to assume that somehow being a "skeptic" makes us immune to this common human failing.

Instead, we should have faith in the methodology of skepticism. Teach that and then trust that people will come to the best conclusion. Concentrate on good critical thinking. Teach the method.

If "skepticism" becomes nothing more than a list of conclusions that any "good" skeptic "must" believe then we've already lost.

 

[-Fran-]

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT! Different people can come to different conclusions even when using the same data. Ultimately, we have to accept and respect that even if we think the other fellow is wrong.

Besides, that's not really what you are saying. Instead, what you are really stating is that you can't personally comprehend how someone can be a Christian and a skeptic. Subtle, but fundamental difference.

Confusing the two turns "skepticism" into an ideology, a set of beliefs that one must adhere to in order to be a "proper" member of the group. Do that and all you end up with is dueling ideologies. Others will turn against skepticism because they will see it (rightly in this particular case) as just one group insisting that it's version of the truth is better than theirs. The fact that it (probably) actually is will be completely beside the point.

Worse, it encourages skeptics to treat their beliefs as a sort of fait accompli where it is so "obvious" that their views are correct why should they really examine them? This is what every other group with a closely held belief system does. We shouldn't be so arrogant as to assume that somehow being a "skeptic" makes us immune to this common human failing.

Instead, we should have faith in the methodology of skepticism. Teach that and then trust that people will come to the best conclusion. Concentrate on good critical thinking. Teach the method.

If "skepticism" becomes nothing more than a list of conclusions that any "good" skeptic "must" believe then we've already lost.

Do words have a definition, or not? Do words become meaningless in the end if we can define them every which way? We are trying to establish the definition of "skeptic" here, yes, because there is indeed such a definition, and that is not one group's version of "truth" in order to exclude another group. We are not trying to exclude anyone, we are just saying that if you want to call a red table a green chair and act as if it is, then you are enitled to, but the red table will still be a red table.

 

[Ranillon]

Do words have a definition, or not? Do words become meaningless in the end if we can define them every which way?

That's not what I am doing. Skepticism is a definitive thing -- a definitive method for evaluating evidence. It is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Think of it this way -- It's the difference between cooking and lasagna. You use the method "cooking" to produce an end product "lasagna." The mistake people are making here is, in effect, to argue that the only "proper" type of cooking is one that always produces lasagna.

 

[-Fran-]

That's not what I am doing. Skepticism is a definitive thing -- a definitive method for evaluating evidence. It is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Think of it this way -- It's the difference between cooking and lasagna. You use the method "cooking" to produce an end product "lasagna." The mistake people are making here is, in effect, to argue that the only "proper" type of cooking is one that always produces lasagna.

And those who state that their belief is beyond the method, or that the method is not applicable to their own belief, while they still use it to evaluate others' beliefs - has stopped cooking alltogether. There's no lasagna coming from that, and no other meals either, no end product at all.

 

[Ranillon]

And those who state that their belief is beyond the method, or that the method is not applicable to their own belief, while they still use it to evaluate others' beliefs - has stopped cooking alltogether. There's no lasagna coming from that, and no other meals either, no end product at all.

Problem is that you are confusing "comes up with an conclusion I think is wrong" with "has stopped cooking altogether." In others words, you are indeed saying that a "good" skeptic must believe in a certain thing, at least on this point.

This is a self-defeating attitude, IMHO, as it reduces "skepticism" to just one belief system dueling with all the others. Why do you think so many people distrust skepticism? It is because they view it as just an attempt of one group to impose its views on others. By taking the above attitude we play right into this preconception.

On the other hand, teaching the method and letting people come to their own conclusions is far less threatening, although it does require us to have -- gasp! -- faith in the power of critical and scientific thinking. It also keeps us honest by making plain the difference between our method for figuring out things and our current conclusions.

 

[-Fran-]

Problem is that you are confusing "comes up with an conclusion I think is wrong" with "has stopped cooking altogether."

It's possible! So let us see the string of logic reasoning they used to come to this conclusion then, let us see exactly how they used the methodology. I would really like to see it, because so far I haven't seen it - ever. And they never want to show you this, if they claim to have come to this conclusion and you ask how. What they do show you are all things that are not skeptical in the least. "I feel god", "he speaks to me", "It's in the bible", "look at nature, how grand it is", "I have personal experiences that are evidence enough for me"... and so on, and so on.

So, yes, I am a bit sceptical of that they are still cooking.

In others words, you are indeed saying that a "good" skeptic must believe in a certain thing, at least on this point.

No, I am saying they should keep cooking. I'd be happy to see some evidence to that their conclusion is based on something solid. We are never shown anything solid, never, ever. Is the recipe such a secret?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

So how does a skeptic justify their woo belief without being hypocritical?

I'm not perfect and neither are you is an excuse, not a justification. You speak as if we are going to exclude skeptics who can't let go of god from the club. That is not the point. The point is, no matter how you slice it, god beliefs are woo. Not saying so ignores the elephant in the room.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Argue the argument, not the arguer.

But you are unique, Claus. And in this case after my experience with you going around in illogical circles in the apes using language thread, one has to be prepared to waste a lot of time on nonsense. Take this reply, for instance. It completely avoids or ignores every point I made and the answers are as if you didn't read a word I said. How can anyone carry on a discussion with you when you don't stick to the original points?

I'll try them one post at a time.

 

[Apology]

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 have a good example. Urban legends. You can be skeptical and atheist as all get-out and still find out that you're wrong on Snopes. People believe urban legends because on the surface they appear rational, or they were once believed to be true but have been proven false after the legend had already circulated (eg: "bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly" legend). Atheists and skeptics are still subject to this type of non-theological incorrect belief, because if something appears reasonable and rational on the surface, one has no reason to question it.

Trust me on this one.

 

[drzeus99]

Why limit your self to religion? Just make it a skeptic can not hold any belief that is not supported by good evidence. So anyone with any stance on gun control or a host of other issues that don't have a clear evidential demonstrated right position is by definition not a skeptic.

Or you can just accept that skeptics can hold non skeptical positions.

Why? Are you really comparing Religious belief to gun control???

Umm.....religious belief is belief based on supernatural woo.

Gun control is a political stance. It has nothing to do with supernatural woo.

Also, religion seems to get some kind of special pass when it comes to evaluating its supernatural claims. (from some people)


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

CFLarsen: 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.

SKEP: You are completely ignoring what I posted. The evidence is in. There is overwhelming evidence that god beliefs are myths. Are you still waiting for the astrology evidence to come in? Are you waiting for the homeopathy evidence to come in? Waiting for that pink unicorn evidence?

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

OK, stop right there. We are in agreement. Don't go back over this issue. Move forward.

SKEP: As long as you recognize that there is no difference [between an open mind on invisible pink unicorns and an open mind on gods], I have no issue. But agnostics, including skeptics, don't recognize the equality of the possibilities of gods and invisible pink unicorns. They believe as you have posted here that we somehow don't know. Nonsense, the evidence is clear. If all the god beliefs people have are clearly not rooted in actual encounters with gods, if there is no evidence gods interact with the Universe (such as answering prayers), then why are gods somehow "not disproved" while invisible pink unicorns are easily dismissed?

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

Here is where we disagree and you are proving my point. You are putting god fantasies on a pedestal and pink unicorn fantasies in the junk pile. And you don't understand my point because if you did you wouldn't have said:

CFLarsen: 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.

Scientists and skeptics who cannot let go of their own god beliefs, or who have taken to allowing others to hold on to their god beliefs have constructed this special category to exclude from science testing for gods. It is convenient to define gods in such a way as to put them in with things outside of the Universe and/or before the Big Bang when time as we know it began. Those are recognized as the things which science cannot test.

The problem with this concept as I see it, is the definition of a god which cannot be tested for using the scientific process is not the definition anyone really uses in their god beliefs. The gods in people's actual god beliefs always do something, otherwise, why believe in one or more of them? The gods in people's actual god beliefs are not the gods which scientists describe that cannot be tested for. And gods which do things can be tested for. I have yet to see that fact truly acknowledged in this controversy.

 

[drzeus99]

I find it fascinating that so many people think they have the authority to decide who is and isn't a Skeptic (tm, apparently).

And others find it fascinating that so many people think they have the, as you say, "authority" to decide who is a whackjob or wingnut based on their belief in many types of woo.

A rose is a rose is a rose..by any other name.

If Uri Gellar says he is a skeptic through and through, EXCEPT when it came to his abilities to bend spoons be means of his mental powers, would people think that he his being HONEST and true about being a skeptic??

Being a skeptic is something that people should strive for. It prevents them from being scammed by flim flam. Skepticism is a noble belief. It makes people less gullible and naive.

But...I still think it's a shame that religion gets a special pass, while belief in psychics (or any other supernatural woo) is fair game.

I guess the old saying is true than ever.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx 1843
as well as
"A crutch for many to blindly hold themselves up with". - DrZ 2007©®


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you assert, and I suspect also have faith that such evidence should meet the requirements of scientific objectivity. What gives you that faith?


....

Hi new blood, Martillo. Welcome.

That's a circular argument you are making there. Let me flatten it out for you. (Real scientists forgive me )

Science: Using the scientific process to determine the best interpretation of the evidence which is observable or detectable in some way

Faith: Not using evidence as determined by the scientific process, but instead relying on beliefs which were obtained from various sources usually in childhood.

Science tests conclusions and continually collects more evidence. Conclusions are continually refined.

Faith: Revisions in beliefs occur but not based on scientific evidence and not automatically if the evidence supports another conclusion.