Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Mobyseven]

How many blinds spots can one have, before one is not a skeptic?

Personally, I wouldn't really consider someone a skeptic if they had more than one woo belief - one can be a blind spot, more than one shows that you probably haven't understood what skepticism is.

Of course, there's another part of me that thinks that this could be a strange example of a sorites paradox. That's the part of me that likes to torture logicians, though.

There's a difference between holding irrational/unsupported beliefs, and holding irrational/unsupported beliefs but claiming evidence of them.

Yes. Specifically, in one are you are claiming evidence of them. It in now way changes the fact that the beliefs are irrational and unsupported.

 

[Dancing David]

What about the Halloweeen Martian Invasion of 1939?

There is plenty of evidence that reasonable people believed it to be true, does that make it reasonable?

 

[Belz...]

Do you know similar numbers of people who will provide similar testimony that they "feel" the presence of Santa?

Yes, a few million kids all over the world.

If so, then the evidence for the two is equal.

Back to science 101 with you!

Otherwise, you have testimonial evidence for God, which you can choose to reject as insufficient (that's fine) but no similar testimonial evidence for Santa.

"Feeling" is not evidence, because otherwise you might skip the false dichotomy and accept this as "evidence" for OTHER gods.

Or did you forget that your god is not the only one ?

 

[Lonewulf]

Heroin - a drug

Heroine - the female in a story, generally rescued by the hero.

...And?

Having some heroines makes ME feel good, I dunno about you.

And there's another definition you missed.

1. a woman of distinguished courage or ability, admired for her brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. the principal female character in a story, play, film, etc.

She doesn't have to just be in a story, and doesn't have to be rescued. In fact, doing rescuing herself is what would make her a heroine.

 

[CFLarsen]

Personally, I wouldn't really consider someone a skeptic if they had more than one woo belief - one can be a blind spot, more than one shows that you probably haven't understood what skepticism is.

How do you separate the different woo claims from each other? Is a belief in healing with crystals any different than a belief in healing with a pendulum?

Yes. Specifically, in one are you are claiming evidence of them. It in now way changes the fact that the beliefs are irrational and unsupported.

But should non-evidential claims disqualify them from being skeptics?

 

[Egg]

I should have been more clear with that post.

I meant to speak with the voice of those who think like that, to show how some people seem to think, and that I don't understand why they think that. I started with the sentence "I've seen many times that there is a sort of belief..." and the rest was a description of those people's beliefs, not my belief. So, the 50/50 thing is not my proposition, but the actual proposition, I was criticising. I was trying to make this point too, that we can't start from scratch, and that, just as you say, the 50/50 train has gone long ago. I've seen that idea so many times, and just as you I think it is nonsense and that it's annoying that it keeps popping up. I think I was referring to Egg's posts, and some things he said in that vein prompted that post, that I admit was badly worded and could easily be misunderstood.

Personally I am an atheist (a strong one I guess) and not agnostic. I lean much more to, was it gayak's, 99/1 proposition with 99% in favor of god's NON-existance. (or less than 1% I guess, that seems too much too.)

Just to clarify my position on this issue, I never suggested the 50/50 thing. What I was trying to say is that in the case of determining the existence of something which we have insufficient empirical evidence to prove, assigning some kind of percentage probability is entirely subjective.

In other words, whether you believe that there's a 99.99% or 50% chance (or even just that's it's unlikely) that an undefined deity exists, that belief can be no more objective than a blind faith theist believing 100% or a strong atheist believing 0%. There is no definitive empirical evidence to base such estimates on, so such beliefs are all lacking objectivity.

Whether any such belief is actually rational or not, as far as I can see is also subjective, unless we can determine an objective definition of "rational" and an objective way to measure someone's thought processes.

In terms of whether this would answer the OP's question, that would depend how we're defining "skeptic". So far there seems to be a mixture of views as to what attributes a person needs to have or not have in order to be called a skeptic. If a skeptic is someone who only has beliefs which have been shown to him to be objectively proven, then he would have no beliefs on the issue at all and therefore indeed be an implicit atheist, but I'm suspecting such a person would also be generally considered to be a lunatic.

 

[Trakgalvis]

It comes down to Bayes theorem, and what prior distribution you have. Then you update this with observations, and the distribution shifts. However, if you give a 0 probability to some set, it will stay 0 whatever you observe. So does a pure skeptic start off with a prior that can be updated?

A person is logical if they update their beliefs based on Bayes theorem, but that still means that two logical people could be in different states based on what they have observed to date and what their starting distributions were. However, for most starting distributions and a lot of observational data most logical people tend to converge to the same distribution.

The amazing thing in many of Randi's videos is that people do not change their minds in a Bayesian way, when they are shown in some sense to be wrong.

So, I think it is possible for someone to put a reason weight on a belief in god, and still behave logically from that point on. So what you should ask is what observations should logically reduce this belief in god.

 

[Mobyseven]

How do you separate the different woo claims from each other? Is a belief in healing with crystals any different than a belief in healing with a pendulum?

No, except for the obvious difference in material claims (crystals versus pendulum). They are distinct, therefore, by virtue of their material differences.

But should non-evidential claims disqualify them from being skeptics?

What difference does it make if a person holds a belief in absence of evidence, as opposed to holding a belief due to faulty or unreliable evidence? I have already said, one blind spot does not stop a person being a skeptic. More than one and it likely stops being a 'blind spot' and becomes more likely that the person does not have a good grasp of skepticism.

 

[Beth]

I will make a concession here - if a belief is widely held and there is no evidence supporting an alternate theory, then it is reasonable for a person to believe the widely held belief (even if it is outed as incorrect in the future).

Before Charles Darwin came along, the prevailing view was that we were all created by god - there was very little evidence for anything else. Before we discoved the effect that the sun and moon have on the oceans, they were controlled by a god of the tides.

I'd phrase that slightly differently. My take on it is that if a belief is widely held and there is no evidence against it, it seems entirely reasonable for a person to hold that belief. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence against the existance of a deity.

I don't think it is a good idea to found any society on an irrational belief, thankyou!

Certainly if you use a literal interpretation that statement is irrational. However, I always thought it was mean to be read as, "All people are afforded equal rights."

So it's only irrational if interpreted in a strict literal sense. I agree. I don't actually interpret it literally either. But the same is true of most religious texts, they are irrational only if interpreted literally. I don't think any of the religious skeptics (the ones posting here anyway) are accepting strict literal interpretations of their religious texts.

Yes, but this is entirely my point - it is completely incorrect to draw a conclusion from anecdotal evidence, which is what you are suggesting is a valid thing to do!

We draw conclusions from the evidence we have available. If all we have is anecdotal evidence, that's what we use. I agree, it's less likely to be correct, but that's doesn't imply that a conclusion from anecdotal evidence is incorrect or that it is invalid to draw a conclusion from such evidence. We simply have to be aware that the probability of a correct conclusion is lower.

All that anecdotal evidence tells us is that someone experienced something - unless they're lying. Without any sort of investigation, we have no way of telling what that 'something' actually is - to blindly accept the word of the person who claimed to have experienced it is to completely skip the investigation phase, and will likely lead you to an incorrect conclusion.

I sorry, I'm apparently not communicating well. I'm not saying that we need to blindly accept someone's word on what happened to them. As egg put it

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.

I think there is a difference between blinding believing any and everyone's account of their religious experiences and dismissing all testimonial evidence as invalid. Atheists can be as arrogant as theists regarding the correctness of their conclusions. It seems to me that both theism and atheism are reasonable conclusions that people can come to when they honestly examine all the evidence available.

 

[Beth]

Yes, a few million kids all over the world.

Sigh. I'm sorry, I forgot to specify 'sane adults' in that post.

Or did you forget that your god is not the only one ?

I'm agnostic.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sigh. I'm sorry, I forgot to specify 'sane adults' in that post.

Sure. Woo 101: Whenever someone catches you, always redefine your terms and move the goalposts as much as you can.

So tell me, if this testimonial evidence is really so compelling, then are you telling me that optical illusions are representative of reality?

 

[Belz...]

Sigh. I'm sorry, I forgot to specify 'sane adults' in that post.

Why do you specifically exclude children ?

I'm agnostic.

Well, that certainly shows...

 

[Beth]

Sure. Woo 101: Whenever someone catches you, always redefine your terms and move the goalposts as much as you can.

You know, I've been trying to use the term 'sane adult' consistently in my posts because I figured if I forgot even once, as I did, someone would claim that children's belief in Santa was the equivalent of a sane adults belief in god. I specified this in a previous post, so I think the charge of 'moving goalposts' is really inappropriate here. I was simply reminding Belz of where I had originally placed them.

So tell me, if this testimonial evidence is really so compelling, then are you telling me that optical illusions are representative of reality?

I'm not claiming the testimonial evidence is compelling. I'm just saying that it's reasonable for a sane adult to take such testimonial evidence into consideration rather than dismissing it entirely when evaluating their beliefs. Are you claiming that no sane adult should ever consider personal testimony as evidence of anything? I don't think so. Likewise, I'm not claiming that anecdotes are compelling evidence and it's reasonable to believe any and all such stories without bothering to consider other explanations. I'm only saying that critical examination of the evidence does not imply dismissal of all such testimony.

Peace.

 

[Lonewulf]

You know, I've been trying to use the term 'sane adult' consistently in my posts because I figured if I forgot even once, as I did, someone would claim that children's belief in Santa was the equivalent of a sane adults belief in god. I specified this in a previous post, so I think the charge of 'moving goalposts' is really inappropriate here. I was simply reminding Belz of where I had originally placed them.

Right, you dismiss million's of childrens viewpoints because they aren't adults. Essentially, you just define yourself away from people you can deem as unable to give good testimony.

I'm not claiming the testimonial evidence is compelling.

Yes you are. You're claiming it's evidence. Evidence, by it's very nature, is compelling. It's evidence, not anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not "data", and if it's not data, it's not evidence.

I'm just saying that it's reasonable for a sane adult to take such testimonial evidence into consideration rather than dismissing it entirely when evaluating their beliefs.

Sure. And there's testimonial evidence of every religion, there's testimonial evidence of UFOs, and there's testimonial evidence of ghosts. Forgive me if I'm not going to rush off and believe in aliens or ghosts just because some sap has a story.

Are you claiming that no sane adult should ever consider personal testimony as evidence of anything? I don't think so.

I always love it when people ask me a question, and then answer it themselves.

It just tells me that it's something I can safely ignore.

Likewise, I'm not claiming that anecdotes are compelling evidence and it's reasonable to believe any and all such stories without bothering to consider other explanations.

It's reasonable to believe any and all such stories? Are you saying that it's not reasonable to believe any and all such stories? If so, you should've used "nor" instead of and.

If you're saying that it is reasonable, then I don't think we agree on that. Nor do I think we will ever.

I'm only saying that critical examination of the evidence does not imply dismissal of all such testimony.

And I have yet to see any such testimony or evidence that is worth examining.

If you can bring up specific examples, that would be great. But for now, I have some "testimony" lurking around somewhere that you consider evidence, that's lurking out there somewhere. As it is, all you have done is say that you have evidence that there is an elf in your backyard because there's testimony that he exists. That's not very convincing.

 

[Beth]

Right, you dismiss million's of childrens viewpoints because they aren't adults. Essentially, you just define yourself away from people you can deem as unable to give good testimony.

Correct. Do you have a problem with discounting the testimony of people who are deemed unable to give good testimony? It seems a rational approach to me.

Yes you are. You're claiming it's evidence. Evidence, by it's very nature, is compelling. It's evidence, not anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not "data", and if it's not data, it's not evidence.

We'll simply have to disagree on that. I do not think that evidence need be compelling. I generally refer to compelling evidence as proof.

Sure. And there's testimonial evidence of every religion, there's testimonial evidence of UFOs, and there's testimonial evidence of ghosts. Forgive me if I'm not going to rush off and believe in aliens or ghosts just because some sap has a story.

No problem. I don't either. My issue is with dismissing all such anecdotes as the equivalent of 'no evidence'.

I always love it when people ask me a question, and then answer it themselves.

It just tells me that it's something I can safely ignore.

Yes, it was rhetorical question. Kudo's to you for spotting that. It was my way of making the point that I'm not extrapolating your statements to ridiculous extremes. I would appreciate it if you would grant me the same courtesy. (Unless of course, you do believe that no sane adult should ever consider personal testimony as evidence of anything, in which case we can discuss that claim in more detail.)

It's reasonable to believe any and all such stories? Are you saying that it's not reasonable to believe any and all such stories? If so, you should've used "nor" instead of and.

Try it like this: I'm not claiming that [remainder of sentence]. A 'nor' would have made it more clear. Sorry.

And I have yet to see any such testimony or evidence that is worth examining.

Okay, but that's a personal subjective opinion based on the evidence you have seen. Why should other people feel the same about all such evidence? Should they just accept your word for it that it isn't worth the bother of examining? I thought skeptics were supposed to to examine the evidence available to them and come to their own conclusions.

If you can bring up specific examples, that would be great. But for now, I have some "testimony" lurking around somewhere that you consider evidence, that's lurking out there somewhere. As it is, all you have done is say that you have evidence that there is an elf in your backyard because there's testimony that he exists. That's not very convincing.

I'm not trying to convince you that your opinion is wrong. I'm only trying to convince you that differing opinions on this subject can result from rational thought and critical examination of the evidence. The evidence is simply not compelling in either direction.

 

[Lonewulf]

Correct. Do you have a problem with discounting the testimony of people who are deemed unable to give good testimony? It seems a rational approach to me.

I have a problem with arbitrarily disregarding testimony that does not agree with me, yes.

Question: Are all children's eyewitness testimony untrustworthy? Can they not hear, see, and experience the world?

We'll simply have to disagree on that. I do not think that evidence need be compelling. I generally refer to compelling evidence as proof.
No problem. I don't either. My issue is with dismissing all such anecdotes as the equivalent of 'no evidence'.
Yes, it was rhetorical question. Kudo's to you for spotting that. It was my way of making the point that I'm not extrapolating your statements to ridiculous extremes. I would appreciate it if you would grant me the same courtesy. (Unless of course, you do believe that no sane adult should ever consider personal testimony as evidence of anything, in which case we can discuss that claim in more detail.)

It depends on what the testimony is of.

I would discount all testimony involving little pink elephants, even if it was Einstein that said that he saw them.

Mass hallucinations are called "mass" for a reason.

Try it like this: I'm not claiming that [remainder of sentence]. A 'nor' would have made it more clear. Sorry.
Okay, but that's a personal subjective opinion based on the evidence you have seen. Why should other people feel the same about all such evidence?

Demonstrate the evidence that proves it enough to make it a belief.

Should they just accept your word for it that it isn't worth the bother of examining?

No, you should bring it to the table so we can have a civilized discussion like real skeptics. Not just hand-waving.

I thought skeptics were supposed to to examine the evidence available to them and come to their own conclusions.

And I'm asking for the evidence.

You still aren't willing to provide it.

I'm not trying to convince you that your opinion is wrong. I'm only trying to convince you that differing opinions on this subject can result from rational thought and critical examination of the evidence. The evidence is simply not compelling in either direction.

I would not call it "rational thought" or "critical examination". Especially since all such evidence is easily shown to be untrustworthy. Also, it seems that you're stating that if the evidence is not compelling, then you can get away with making the claim that your belief is true; and that thus is rational.

Sorry, no dice.

 

[voidx]

I know I'm going to regret joining in, but damnit, I can't help myself .

I've often repeated this idea on here. Skeptics is not a group, its not a social club you join, its not something you become a member of. Its a methodology. Its a process of evaluating ideas and beliefs. Its essentially to not be credulous and to take everything at face value.

As part of that, a person applies their skepticism to varying degree's to various beliefs. One can be openly very skeptical about homeopathy, yet apply less skepticism to a more deeply held belief, such as Gods or Deities. This does not necessarily invalidate their skepticism towards homeopathy. It can put forth the challenge that one has applied less skepticism to their belief in God, than to homeopathy. Or even perhaps the challenge that given ones belief in a God, that others may question the process of evaluation they use for other beliefs and ideas.

The process of skepticism is defined by each individual person. Everyone thinks they've applied due skepticism to their various beliefs if pressed on the issue.

This brings us to the validity, the vigor, and the open-mindedness that any particular persons skepticism might imply. I think this IS open for debate, that its open for challenge, that scientific principles do put certain forms of skeptical inquiry above others as more objective and valid. And I think people can and should be challenged on whether or not they have truly, objectively taken their own bias' into account when evaluating their personal beliefs.

Its entirely possible for one to question the process by which a person has evaluated any particular belief, based upon scientific principles, and a world full of other people who have also likely evaluated that same belief.

There's no logical line that can be drawn to seperate between a skeptic and a non-skeptic. 1 woo belief but not 2? Seems arbitrary. And leaving it as an absolute is also indefensible. It would invalidate a portion of well established posters even on here as non-skeptics as they have a belief in God. When they are clearly very logically skeptical about a great many other topics and beliefs.

But by no means does that let them off the hook. They should be challenged and asked about their personal beliefs. People need to stop hiding behind the curtain of politeness and political correctness to save their personal beliefs from valid and open questioning and inquiry.

 

[voidx]

As for the question of any particular God. Do people seriously believe that modern conceptions of God popped into existence whole cloth? I'd argue that conceptions of Gods have even changed dramatically over the last several centuries. Moving away from the Causal Agent type God that interacts with the world to a more vague and hazy God as the Laws of Nature kind of conception.

I think people need to seriously consider the evolution of belief in deities.

Did pre-civilized peoples have the same conception of God as we do? Or did they start off with basic anscestor worship, which slowly developed into simple Tribal forms of ritual and spirituality, which later developed further into polytheisistic religions and then slowly into highly organized monotheistic religions.

There are many mundane advantages to basic ancestor worship. Take leaders of a small tribe that are faced with a dilemma. No rain so far this spring. The tribe looks to them for answers. They cannot afford to lose face or power, so the question is "posed" to the "Gods", to an incorpreal agent. Now, if rain is brought forth, it reinforces the leaders connection with the Gods and hence his position of power. If rain does not come forth, then the Gods may be angry, or are being vindictive, either way, its not the direct fault of said leader.

As another example, there may be benefits to start to ponder, "what would my anscestors have done in this situation." as a means of prediction. This turns into a ritualistic scenario and mental scene play. I see many mundane uses or catalysts for creating a conception of God, that I'm not surprised that early humans and civilizations did. And given the state of modern cultures its obvious how useful and prolific the idea has been historically. But to me, that long history and deep ingrained belief cannot be used as a validation that the belief is actually true.

I think its obvious that open hostility and denouncment of other ideals would actually be a strength for such a concept. That belief based on faith, based on lack of objective evidence is also seen as a strength, despite that pointing out that its entirely self-servering shows it as just as strongly to be a weakness from an objective stand point.

No evidence against an idea is not necessarily a strength for that idea. It may simply be that the concept is so vague in the first place, no one could logically show any evidence against it because no one's even sure how to go about proving it in the first place. It may also be that the idea had zero predictive power, zero practical uses that showing it doesn't exist isn't necessary. That the world around us can be explained by mundane means which, so far, have absolutely no need for a conception of God to increase our explanatory framework.

The obvious rebuttal to this is that people do have evidence, that they have personal experiences, have experienced direct contact or feeling with God. To which the obvious answer is, our experiences are not well known to us. We know very clearly many instances in which what we experience is an illusion, that it is different from reality, that there are gaps in our perceptual apparatus. Anyone raising personal experiences as a strength should logically temper those arguments against the gaps and lacks in our perceptions and experiences. And if one is truly trying to evaluate their beliefs, that should lead them to a position of doubt. Not one of blind faith.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'd say that the experiences bit, coupled with the evolution of religion, combined are interesting.

Apparently, the Egyptians did not "feel" the Abrahamic God. In fact, the majority of religions throughout the world, before they were killed off or forcefully converted, tended to have far different ideas. You'd think that God could get his visions right.

Chalk one more up for the inefficient, incompetent Abrahamic God.

 

[Beth]

I have a problem with arbitrarily disregarding testimony that does not agree with me, yes.

Question: Are all children's eyewitness testimony untrustworthy? Can they not hear, see, and experience the world?

When I specify sane adults, I'm disregarding testimony from people who are known to have difficulty separating reality from fantasy. That's hardly an arbitrary disregard of testimony that I don't agree with. It seems to me that it is you who are committing that particularly fallacy. You are disregarding the testimony of anyone who claims to have had a religious experience because you disagree with them.

It depends on what the testimony is of.

So, you arbitrarily disregard testimony you don't agree with. Got it.

I would discount all testimony involving little pink elephants, even if it was Einstein that said that he saw them.

Mass hallucinations are called "mass" for a reason.

How can a hypothesis of 'mass hallucination' be falsified? If a skeptic wished to dispute such an explanation, how would you prove to a skeptic that your explanation is the correct one?

Demonstrate the evidence that proves it enough to make it a belief.

No, you should bring it to the table so we can have a civilized discussion like real skeptics. Not just hand-waving.

And I'm asking for the evidence.

You still aren't willing to provide it.

Quite right. First, my observations of people who do provide such evidence is that it isn't a civil discussion at all, but an invitation to a mass attack. Second, I'm not a believer in any particular deity, so I can hardly present you with evidence I personally find convincing.

I would not call it "rational thought" or "critical examination". Especially since all such evidence is easily shown to be untrustworthy. Also, it seems that you're stating that if the evidence is not compelling, then you can get away with making the claim that your belief is true; and that thus is rational.

Sorry, no dice.

You've added the part about my claiming the belief is true. I haven't done that. I'm only saying that if the evidence is not compelling either way (and it isn't) then theism and atheism are both rational conclusions that a skeptic can come to.