Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[schlitt]

You can't test the "skill" of a composer against another and see which one "wins". Bach was practically forgotten for decades after his death. Was Beethoven a better composer than Bach? Than Mozart? They composed in different styles, in different types of works.

As for testing which elements of the music that are pleasing - that's inherently down to taste. While I share a joy for Händel's Messiah chorus with a lot of other people, I find the "For unto us a child is born" chorus better. Not a lot of people can pin that one down.

Am I wrong? We can't tell either way, because the question is misplaced.

We could tell, but the parameters would need to be definined. A MRI of your brain while listening could determine the parts of your brain which activate during what parts of the music. The composition of the music from a complexity standpoint could be examined vs other composers, and a decision could be made as to the composers skill, and ability to provoke emotion or enjoyment as measured. The only thing that would hold us back would be a lack of definition of what "The best composer" really means.
Regardless, this is opinion based and would vary hugely among people, you may be right or wrong but it really does not matter.

However with a claim like "There is a god", there is a right and a wrong stance. It either does exist, or it doesn't. For a reasonable skeptic, there would need to be a reason to believe there is a god other than desire for there to be.

There isn't! But the key is: It isn't claimed to be true.



It isn't claimed to be true.

So if something is not claimed to be true, it does not matter if it is or not?
I don't get it...

No, I'm saying that skepticism cannot be applied to anything which is untestable. "Should not" as in "should not because it can not".

Why? Is it unreasonable of me to require evidence of invisible pink unicorns before i believe in them? Isn't that the whole point of skepticism?

But in order for it to be true (or not!), it has to be testable.

I disagree, i could come up with infinite scenarios that are untestable, the untestability of the scenario does not magically make it true. It simply remains untestable, and a skeptics position simply remains "I require evidence".

We can go a little further. We can say that e.g. homeopathy is rubbish, because we have more than adequate natural explanations that cover each and every claim that homeopaths make. There are no unexplored spots on the map of homeopathy. There is nothing unexplainable in what Sylvia does, either.

Agreed, but just because we can effectively debunk testable claims should not mean we are gullible towards untestable claims.

We shouldn't - if such evidence is claimed.

None of those statements are claiming to be evidential, they are claims in themselves. What is the claim that you are backing up here with your argument, and how does it differ from any of these claims?

 

[Beth]

In which case, one might as well act like there is no God than if there is any at all. At least, that's what occam's razor and a scientific viewpoint tells me.

Well, that's one POV and a fine one too. But it's not the only POV.

However, personal eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. You should know that. If objective evidence leads one way, and eyewitness testimony another, it's usually wiser to go the former.

Yes. But if there is no objective evidence, then eyewitness testimony is as good as it gets. The jury then has to decide based on how credible they find the eyewitness testimony. I agree that it's notoriously unreliable. I once hung a jury because the prosecutors case was based entirely on the eyewitness testimony of a couple of drunk men. I thought there was reasonable doubt. Ten out eleven other people who had heard and seen the exact same testimony disagreed. For an awful lot of people, such testimony is very persuasive about a great many things.

I can fault them for accepting testimonial evidence for god. Just like someone can fault me for lapses of logic in any viewpoint I hold, no matter what viewpoint that is.

If someone claims that a paranormal event happened, and then you eat it up and accept it as truth right away without questioning it, why can't I fault you?

Of course you can fault me for that. You can fault anyone you like for any reason you like. Is that the issue here? Or is it whether or not other people should listen to your arguments when you are discussing the faults with their opinions? In that case, it's best to have good arguments. Claiming that the existance of god is just as likely as the existance of an IPU or Santa Claus because the evidence for them is the same is NOT a good argument because it's not true.

 

[CFLarsen]

We could tell, but the parameters would need to be definined. A MRI of your brain while listening could determine the parts of your brain which activate during what parts of the music. The composition of the music from a complexity standpoint could be examined vs other composers, and a decision could be made as to the composers skill, and ability to provoke emotion or enjoyment as measured. The only thing that would hold us back would be a lack of definition of what "The best composer" really means.
Regardless, this is opinion based and would vary hugely among people, you may be right or wrong but it really does not matter.

Wait a second. Can we find evidence of which composer is the best, or is that opinion based?

You can't have it both ways.

However with a claim like "There is a god", there is a right and a wrong stance. It either does exist, or it doesn't. For a reasonable skeptic, there would need to be a reason to believe there is a god other than desire for there to be.

Of course.

So if something is not claimed to be true, it does not matter if it is or not?
I don't get it...

It doesn't matter to a skeptic - because a skeptic cares only about the evidence.

Why? Is it unreasonable of me to require evidence of invisible pink unicorns before i believe in them? Isn't that the whole point of skepticism?

Of course you can - and you should. But if no such evidence is claimed, what the heck are you, as a skeptic, going to do about it? You can't dismiss a claim as being unbacked by evidence, if no such evidence is claimed.

I disagree, i could come up with infinite scenarios that are untestable, the untestability of the scenario does not magically make it true. It simply remains untestable, and a skeptics position simply remains "I require evidence".

I'm not saying the untestability of the scenario makes it true.

Agreed, but just because we can effectively debunk testable claims should not mean we are gullible towards untestable claims.

Of course not.

None of those statements are claiming to be evidential, they are claims in themselves. What is the claim that you are backing up here with your argument, and how does it differ from any of these claims?

OK, you lost me there. What do you mean that they are "claims in themselves"? Claims of what?

I don't know what you mean by "my claim" either.

 

[karmicserenade]

Okay I would like to say something on this topic, I view myself as a spiritual being, but my beliefs are not based upon what I see and touch, but instead what I feel....in fact I see spirituality as something that holds me together, the glue to my essence if you will.

I won't bother trying to explain it too deeply, because it seems that most of you believe that 'woo' is somehow related to true spirituality, it is not. Having faith in a higher power is a beautiful thing, it inspires. But it is not for everyone.

I didn't think this forum was created to persecute people with spiritual beliefs, I believe it was created to examine false claims and dig for the truth. What does all of that have to do with what religion you practice?? It is a personal decision, not to be taken lightly...I for one respect the atheists here, I would never try to say that you are any less or more of a human than I....we are all equal, and all here for the same reason To discover the truth...and that is a noble thing indeed.

 

[Apology]

There was a spot of imitation of a theist skeptic in that post, for one thing, I don't believe in super-sky-daddy

Anyway, in response, I grew up among all this woo crap, never believed a word of it tho. Your idealism isn't foreign to me at all, but I must admit that I have lost more and more patience with the victims over the years, and I have been an active skeptic since the 90ies (had a radioshow on the matter back then). It's quite rare to cure someone from True Believer syndrome.

I'm an agnostic, so I have no victims

It is quite rare to convert someone from a "True Believer" to non-belief. That's while I feel that religion (in conscious adults) is a choice. They choose to continue to believe based on their evidence and choose to ignore or disbelieve everyone else's evidence. With people like this, the best we can do is convert them to a less radical form of theism: Pentecostal to Episcopalian, for example. There's still a lot of benefit to this, as we can attempt to convince them that science is good, religious wars are bad, etc., even if we can't convince them that there is no God as they describe it.

 

[schlitt]

Wait a second. Can we find evidence of which composer is the best, or is that opinion based?

You can't have it both ways.

It depends on what "best" means. A composer could be "best" relative to opinion, or could be outright "best" regarding the parameters set, e.g able to invoke emotion in more people than another composer.

Lets try and simplify this;

I agree, skeptics cannot 100% dismiss as untrue a claim that can never be shown to be false.
However, a claim that has no way of verifying its truth, has a probability ranging from 0% to 100% of being correct.
Since a skeptic requires evidence before believing, it is reasonable then to not accept an untestable claim as truth.

So, are you using skeptical methodology if you accept a claim as true, that has no evidence for it? The answer is no.

If someone were to state they are a theist, and have used skeptical methodology to arrive at that conclusion. For them to be correct they must be able to reference some evidence that lead them to the conclusion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay I would like to say something on this topic, I view myself as a spiritual being, but my beliefs are not based upon what I see and touch, but instead what I feel....in fact I see spirituality as something that holds me together, the glue to my essence if you will.

I won't bother trying to explain it too deeply, because it seems that most of you believe that 'woo' is somehow related to true spirituality, it is not. Having faith in a higher power is a beautiful thing, it inspires. But it is not for everyone.

I didn't think this forum was created to persecute people with spiritual beliefs, I believe it was created to examine false claims and dig for the truth. What does all of that have to do with what religion you practice?? It is a personal decision, not to be taken lightly...I for one respect the atheists here, I would never try to say that you are any less or more of a human than I....we are all equal, and all here for the same reason To discover the truth...and that is a noble thing indeed.

What is "true spirituality"?

What "truths" have your spirituality given/shown you?

 

[karmicserenade]

Well when you compare 'woo' to what I deem as 'true spirituality', they come up as two different things. I feel that spirituality is something that creates serenity in life, a feeling of bliss. I meditate and feel closer to the divine essence that created me. I am not religious, and do not worship any particular deity, so I am probably not the best example of a spiritual person per say...

I feel that having a spiritual life has eased much stress for me, and has kept me somewhat sane It has given me patience for my fellow man, and has helped me to be more forgiving (both of myself, and those around me). The question is what hasn't it given me?

 

[-Fran-]

Well when you compare 'woo' to what I deem as 'true spirituality', they come up as two different things. I feel that spirituality is something that creates serenity in life, a feeling of bliss. I meditate and feel closer to the divine essence that created me. I am not religious, and do not worship any particular deity, so I am probably not the best example of a spiritual person per say...

I feel that having a spiritual life has eased much stress for me, and has kept me somewhat sane It has given me patience for my fellow man, and has helped me to be more forgiving (both of myself, and those around me). The question is what hasn't it given me?

I mean no disrespect, but to me it sounds as if you have just required the wonderful ability to relax. I wish I was better at that

 

[CFLarsen]

It depends on what "best" means. A composer could be "best" relative to opinion, or could be outright "best" regarding the parameters set, e.g able to invoke emotion in more people than another composer.

But this is very far from what you claimed earlier: That we could determine which composer was "best" by testing them up against each other.

If you set up parameters, how will you ensure that they won't be designed to make one particular composer "best"? Give a concrete example, please.

Lets try and simplify this;

I agree, skeptics cannot 100% dismiss as untrue a claim that can never be shown to be false.
However, a claim that has no way of verifying its truth, has a probability ranging from 0% to 100% of being correct.
Since a skeptic requires evidence before believing, it is reasonable then to not accept an untestable claim as truth.

So, are you using skeptical methodology if you accept a claim as true, that has no evidence for it? The answer is no.

If someone were to state they are a theist, and have used skeptical methodology to arrive at that conclusion. For them to be correct they must be able to reference some evidence that lead them to the conclusion.

But this is not what we are discussing. We are not discussing if people who claim evidence of a paranormal/supernatural belief are skeptics. They are not, no question about it.

We are discussing if people who don't claim evidence of their beliefs are skeptics.

Well when you compare 'woo' to what I deem as 'true spirituality', they come up as two different things. I feel that spirituality is something that creates serenity in life, a feeling of bliss. I meditate and feel closer to the divine essence that created me. I am not religious, and do not worship any particular deity, so I am probably not the best example of a spiritual person per say...

I feel that having a spiritual life has eased much stress for me, and has kept me somewhat sane It has given me patience for my fellow man, and has helped me to be more forgiving (both of myself, and those around me). The question is what hasn't it given me?

If you are calling "serenity", "bliss" and "ease of stress" "true spirituality", then what is the difference between that and the aftermath of a good orgasm?

What "truths" have your spirituality given/shown you? "Serenity" is not a "truth", nor is "bliss".

 

[Mobyseven]

Alright then, lets try this again:

Should a skeptic, by definition, be an atheist?

No, because being a skeptic merely requires the application of skepticism. There are no other prerequisites to being a skeptic.

Should a skeptic be an atheist?

This is a different question, and the answer is yes. Through application of empirical skepticism, it is reasonably obvious that the evidence for god is the same as the evidence for bigfoot and the fairies - zilch. If a skeptic believes in god, it doesn't mean that they aren't a skeptic anymore, given that they probably haven't abandoned critical thinking in regards to other topics, but it does mean that they have not applied skepticism to their belief in god, or that they have applied skepticism and decided to believe an admittedly irrational belief. For them to apply skepticism and believe in god without it being one of those two options would require them to have some kind of evidence for the existence of god - if anyone has this I would kindly recommend that they stop keeping it a secret and let the rest of the world know about it pronto.

Hello? I wrote this, but the only person who seems to have even noticed it is Skeptigirl.

Also...

Beth:

You talk alot about beliefs being 'reasonable' to believe. By what criteria are you determining which beliefs are 'reasonable'?

 

[schlitt]

But this is very far from what you claimed earlier: That we could determine which composer was "best" by testing them up against each other.

If you set up parameters, how will you ensure that they won't be designed to make one particular composer "best"? Give a concrete example, please.

If you have a parameter "Whose music contains the most melodies which evoke emotion" or any type of thing you want to test for, you can determine which does, and you could relate that to what you consider to be "best". It is all relative to who is setting the parameters, and why.

But this is not what we are discussing. We are not discussing if people who claim evidence of a paranormal/supernatural belief are skeptics. They are not, no question about it.

We are discussing if people who don't claim evidence of their beliefs are skeptics.

Quite right, so you tell me how someone who believes something without evidence is employing skeptical methodology when taking on this belief?

I say they are not. While they may be skeptical in other facets of life, they are not applying the same skepticism in an instance where they adopt a belief with no evidence.

 

[schlitt]

Hello? I wrote this, but the only person who seems to have even noticed it is Skeptigirl.

I agree with what you wrote Moby.

 

[Beth]

I mean no disrespect, but to me it sounds as if you have just required the wonderful ability to relax. I wish I was better at that

I wish I was better at that too!

But meditative states are not the same as relaxing. I don't think that's what KS is referring to.

 

[-Fran-]

I agree with what you wrote Moby.

I do agree with that too.

 

[Egg]

Egg-- do you believe in demons? Why or why not? Are you skeptical of demons? Are you skeptical of other gods or do you feel like they are all (or mostly) the same? Why aren't you as skeptical of god(s) as demons? Or are you? How would you feel if you knew atheists felt the same way you feel about demons when it comes to your god? I'm interested on hearing your take on the subject and any other theists. I hope you don't avoid the question.

Well I believe that much of what has been attributed to demons actually has a far more earthly explanation. I'm not aware of any empirical evidence to shed a lot more light on the subject than that. As far as particular claims go, we can be in a better position to test them, but in terms of whether demons (whatever they may be) exist at all, I'm pretty much in the "I don't know" camp. I wouldn't say I either believed or disbelieved.

In terms of "other" gods, I don't regard it as necessarily as simplistic as that. Maybe it is, but there are other possibilities. Instead of going into a long, rambling, speculative, off-topic essay, I'll simplify it to "I don't know".

As I stated in an earlier post, reading what several people who claim to be "skeptics" have been saying, I'm not sure that I'm working with an agreed definition, so right now it's a little difficult to answer all your questions.

As far as the atheists question goes, the broadness applied to the term "atheist" would mean I would expect a broad range of opinion. From my understanding of scepticism I would have imagined the sceptical approach would be to admit lack of empirical proof and to therefore base any opinions on logic, subjective reasoning and whatever other kinds of evidence might be available. I'd expect to find and feel just fine with others coming to a different opinion, so long as they didn't claim some kind of arrogant knowledge about their particular conclusion.

 

[Egg]

Hello? I wrote this, but the only person who seems to have even noticed it is Skeptigirl.

Should the word "empirical" be before your last use of the word "evidence"?

Are you saying that you believe a belief based on anything other than empirical evidence is irrational?

 

[Beth]

From my understanding of scepticism I would have imagined the sceptical approach would be to admit lack of empirical proof and to therefore base any opinions on logic, subjective reasoning and whatever other kinds of evidence might be available. I'd expect to find and feel just fine with others coming to a different opinion, so long as they didn't claim some kind of arrogant knowledge about their particular conclusion.

Nicely put. I feel just the same but have never been able to express it so succinctly.

 

[Egg]

I think Egg was just a little confused because your sentence was unclear. I got your meaning, but I think Egg didn't. You said:

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

Yep, sorry still confused on this one. Even with "scientific" in there I still don't see how this isn't a contradiction to the other point. "The Earth is not flat" we can conclude because we can see that the earth is spherical and logic tells us that it can't be spherical and flat. Why is the skeptical approach definitively saying "God does not exist" without any empirical evidence to back up such a claim? While this agrees with the statement: "The atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is a skeptic.", doesn't it contradict "It is 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."?

 

[Beth]

Beth:

You talk alot about beliefs being 'reasonable' to believe. By what criteria are you determining which beliefs are 'reasonable'?

I'm using the word in roughly the same way you might say 'rational'. I just didn't want to get into a derail on the meaning of the word 'rational' and would like to avoid a similar derail on reasonable. A reasonable belief is one a reasonable adult might hold as opposed to say, a belief that is better described as a delusion held by a lunatic or a child's belief in their invisible friend. People on this forum have a tendence to equate belief in any sort of a god with delusions held by lunatics or a child's invisible friend. I'm arguing that a belief in god is not on a par with either of those, but as reasonable a stance as the atheists non-belief in god.