Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Mobyseven]

BTW, Moby--

I've been reading and following you all along... and agree with your definition of what skepticism is. In fact, I agree with all your points.

To me, most skeptics would figure gods were in the same category as demons-- very unlikely... but very easy for people to be manipulated into believing in because they tap into primal feelings... they seem like they could be real... especially in a child's mind... and you can see how with inculcation those thoughts could remain past adulthood...especially prior to understanding other explanations and/or if you lived in a culture where it was beneficial to believe or express belief in such things.

Thankyou.

It probably won't surprise you that I think critical thinking is a skill that needs to be taught from an early age - there is no reason that children can't learn basic thinking skills while still playing make believe. There's too much talking down to children that goes on in society, discouraging them from asking questions often because they either ask too many or the adult doesn't know the answer.

 

[Beth]

Of course you'd phrase it slightly differently Beth - because otherwise it doesn't agree with you. Unfortunately, your take on a reasonable belief is ridiculous - whereas my criteria was that there not be any evidence supporting an alternate hypothesis, you say it is enough that there not be any evidence against a claim.

By your reasoning, the following are reasonable to believe in:

• Yahweh
• Santa
• Fairies
• Goblins
• Vampires
• Werewolves
• Unicorns
• Invisible Unicorns
• Invisible Pink Unicorns
• Loki

The above are not widely held beliefs by sane adults, so they do NOT qualify as reasonable by the criteria we've discussed. Except for maybe Yahweh, if by that you mean the jewish name for god.

• Homeopathy
• Telepathy
• Telekinesis
• The Loch Ness Monster

There is objective evidence against these claims so they do NOT qualify as reasonable by the criteria we've discussed.

• Reincarnation
• Vishnu
• Krishna
• Kali

These are, if I'm not mistaken, Hindu religious beliefs, so it seems appropriate to say that, yes, they may be considered reasonable by the critiera we've been discussing.

In summary: You're wrong.

I'm often wrong. But you haven't convinced me that this is one of those occasions yet.

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.

The issue isn't that the probability of a correct conclusion is lower, Beth, the issue is that the probability of a correct conclusion is so incredibly low that any correct conclusion you come to based upon anecdotal evidence will be correct purely by chance. A conclusion based on anecdotal evidence is no different to a blind guess - it might be right, but its being right is pretty much independant of what anecdotal evidence you were exposed to.

I must disagree. While not as good as objective repeatible evidence, I think it's better than making blind guesses, which is what you are claiming here.

We discussed anecdotal evidence earlier in this thread. I provided several examples, which you rejected for various reasons. I didn't dispute your reasoning as I am not interested in discussing the various pros and cons of the use of anecdotal evidence right now. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the value of anecdotal evidence. My point is only that it's reasonable for people to make use of such evidence when nothing else is available. You make a subjective assessment of the value of such evidence as near zero. A reasonable person can disagree with that assessment and thus, arrive at a different conclusion.

Well, duh. They're pretty much opposite approaches - you think there is a difference?

I phrased that badly. I'm trying to get across the idea that middle ground exists. One need not have blind faith OR reject entirely. I can listen and decide to withhold judgement until I feel more comfortable making a decision.

I'm sorry, what? Kindly point out what it is that atheists have concluded aside from, "There is, to a likelihood of 99.9999...%, no god." More than that, find me a skeptical atheist who would not change his or her mind if there actually was evidence of god.

That conclusion is an unverifiable probability estimate made based on a subjective evaluation of the evidence (you are giving anecdotal or testimonial evidence a weight of near zero) to conclude that the probability of the non-existance of god is 99.9999%. When you proclaim it as fact you are as arrogant as the theist who claims as fact the existance of god.

This is called 'begging the question', Beth, and it's a logical fallacy. We should discount anecdotal evidence of Santa because it comes from people who have trouble separating reality from fantasy. But we should accept the anecdotal evidence of god, because it comes from sane people.

Not quite. I'm not saying you must accept such anecdotal evidence of god. I'm saying that it is a reasonable and rational choice to do so, and therefore, a skeptic can examine the evidence critically and rationally conclude something other than atheism.

But what if god doesn't exist? Well, then the people who claim anecdotal evidence of god are also people who have trouble separating reality from fantasy (as they claim to have anecdotal evidence of an imaginary being), and we should therefore discount their testimony.
So, by your own logic, if god exists then their testimony can be accepted. If god doesn't exist, then their testimony should be discarded.

We don't know whether god does or does not exist. Until we have established one conclusion or the other as fact, we have to go by some other criteria to decide whether testimony for the existance of god seems credible. Multiple sane adults testifing to the similar experiences is not an unreasonable critiera for deciding their stories have some credibility. You may certainly argue for some other critiera if you like. But dismissing the testimony because you don't believe in god doesn't seem like an unbiased assessment of the evidence to me.

 

[Belz...]

Not quite. I'm not saying you must accept such anecdotal evidence of god. I'm saying that it is a reasonable and rational choice to do so, and therefore, a skeptic can examine the evidence critically and rationally conclude something other than atheism.

And what about Santa ? Would it apply if some "sane adults" said they've seen him ?

 

[voidx]

Lastly, for voidx:

Yes, I admit that it is somewhat arbitrary. My reasoning was that while it might be acceptable for a person to have one blind spot, more than that and it is likely that the person has not fully understood skepticism.

The more I think about it though, the more it seems like an example of a sorites paradox. I favour the 'epistemological solution' to that particular paradox, and I am tempted to say, therefore, that there is a certain number of woo beliefs that demarcate skeptics and non-skeptics, but that we do not and cannot know where this boundary is!

Fair enough. Lets say then that there is no practical and easily consistent line that can be drawn .

I think we essentially agree. While I say and think that alot of what people consider to be skepticism is a matter of perspective, I do also strongly think that it can be objectively weighed against logic and other peoples process of skeptical inquiry to see if it may be more or less valid, more or less aware of bias.

 

[Bri]

The topic of the thread is "Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?"

So has anyone posted their definition of "skeptic" yet?

If not, I imagine the question of whether a theist would fit the definition is more easily answered given a definition.

-Bri

 

[voidx]

We don't know whether god does or does not exist. Until we have established one conclusion or the other as fact, we have to go by some other criteria to decide whether testimony for the existance of god seems credible. Multiple sane adults testifing to the similar experiences is not an unreasonable critiera for deciding their stories have some credibility. You may certainly argue for some other critiera if you like. But dismissing the testimony because you don't believe in god doesn't seem like an unbiased assessment of the evidence to me.

You use the term sane adults as some blanket fix for people experiencing perceptual anomolies. Sane adults are just as susceptible to the gaps in perceptual experience as anyone else. They have the same problem we all do, of quantifying internal experience. There's a difference however.

Sane adults believe that gravity exists, that the sun exists, that rocks are hard. They take these internal perceptions of reality and experience and compare them with what other people can also objectively test and see and confirm.

Belief in deities is not the same. They believe in a belief in God. They believe in an unquantifiable internal experience that cannot be objectively tested and seen and confirmed.

The majority of a population believing something is not an instant mark of credibility. And thinking so shows how narrow a scope you are using. In the past certain cultures believed in the vast majority in Zeus. Or in the Sun God, or in spirits that were used to explain the seasons. Or that the sun revolves around the earth. Do you believe those concepts are true or real? Does their being a popular idea or concept, at the time, have any bearing on whether they are true or real? No. Is it a mark of credibility by default. No.

If popular opinion were a mark of credibility by default, well take a look at Snopes.com sometime and see all the wacky, completely unjustified things we'd have to take as credible.

That a concept or idea is popular does nothing to change the fact that there is no objective basis for quantifying it. While it may seem comforting that others share the idea, it adds no further objective validity to it.

 

[Beth]

No, but nor should they be disregarded entirely. If a child witnesses a murder, are you really willing to ignore that child's testimony?

No, but we're not talking about witnessing a murder. We're discussing the value of testimonial evidence for the existance of god. For the purposes of this discussion, I think it is reasonable to limit consideration of testimonial evidence to that provided by sane adults.

Saying that you see pink unicorns and saying that you witnessed a robbery are not equal. You think they are.

Lovely strawman. Is it pretty when it burns?

Second-hand testimony is, however. You're giving me second-hand testimony, and expecting me to defend against it.

No, I'm not asking you to defend against it. I'm just saying when if a skeptic is aware of such first hand tesimony from a trusted individual, or has their own personal subjective experiences, then not dismissing that evidence is neither irrational or unreasonable.

THEY claim it's true. Jeez, it's always about you, isn't it?

You said:

Actually, you are the one that is claiming that your "vision" is true.

Can you blame me for thinking you were referring to me? I hadn't claimed any vision, so I didn't understand what you meant. I'm still not clear on what your point was.

What about bigfoot? http://bigfootsightings.org/

Adults saw bigfoot. And they're actually adults and can be considered sane. Therefore, I should be able to claim that Bigfoot's existance is JUST AS LIKELY as his non-existance, right?

No. I wouldn't say the existance and non-existance are equally likely. I haven't made that claim for god either. All I would say is that such testimony means that it is reasonable to assign a higher probability to the existance of bigfoot than to the existance of IPU's.

 

[voidx]

The topic of the thread is "Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?"

So has anyone posted their definition of "skeptic" yet?

If not, I imagine the question of whether a theist would fit the definition is more easily answered given a definition.

-Bri

Heh what would be the point? No one would agree on any definition anyway. We'd just spend another 20 pages arguing over definitions that in the end would be equally self-serviing to create wiggle room to maintain everyone's already preconceived opinions.

Hency my thinking that trying to categorize people as skeptics / non-skeptics is doomed to failure and utterly impractical. What is more practical is discussing peoples process of skeptical inquiry, identifying bias' wherever possible, and see if there is a stance that logically holds through varied and intense scrutiny.

 

[Lonewulf]

No. I wouldn't say the existance and non-existance are equally likely. I haven't made that claim for god either. All I would say is that such testimony means that it is reasonable to assign a higher probability to the existance of bigfoot than to the existance of IPU's.

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.

If they are both equally rational CONCLUSIONS*, then they are both equally likely.


*I would add that any use of the word "conclusion" is, at it's heart, moronic. A rational skeptic should not make a conclusion with so little to go by. Not even atheists make such "conclusions", if you've ever read Dawkins, you'd know that.

 

[Beth]

That a concept or idea is popular does nothing to change the fact that there is no objective basis for quantifying it. While it may seem comforting that others share the idea, it adds no further objective validity to it.

Right. I'm not claiming that popularity of an idea affects whether or not it's true. What I'm arguing is that it is rational and reasonable to consider testimonial evidence of similar experiences which are interpreted in a consistent manner as evidence when forming an opinion. When there is no objective evidence available as is the case for the existance of god, a skeptic can critically examine the testimomial and/or personal experiences they've had as part of the available evidence and NOT necessarily conclude that atheism is the only rational belief.

 

[Bri]

Heh what would be the point? No one would agree on any definition anyway. We'd just spend another 20 pages arguing over definitions that in the end would be equally self-serviing to create wiggle room to maintain everyone's already preconceived opinions.

You mean this thread has gone on for 20 pages and nobody has posted a definition to support their opinion? There's no need to come to a consensus on one definition that satisfies everyone -- we can answer the question posed by the OP as it relates to individual definitions. Individuals can certainly post the definition by which they draw whatever conclusion they are arguing, and we can examine what other beliefs one might hold that qualify or disqualify one as a "skeptic" using the same defintion. It'll be fun!

(Of course, if your definition includes "but you can't be a theist" then there won't be any question.)

Hency my thinking that trying to categorize people as skeptics / non-skeptics is doomed to failure and utterly impractical. What is more practical is discussing peoples process of skeptical inquiry, identifying bias' wherever possible, and see if there is a stance that logically holds through varied and intense scrutiny.

Same difference. If your definition is "one who follows a process of skeptical inquiry" it would certainly make sense to include the process along with the definition, for completeness. And we can still determine which beliefs can be arrived at (or not) using said process.

So let's hear it!

-Bri

 

[Beth]

If they are both equally rational CONCLUSIONS*, then they are both equally likely.

I didn't make any statements claiming equality of the two. You added that part. I'm getting bored with constantly having to correct your strawmen versions of my arguments. I think I'll stop now. Have a nice day.

 

[Beth]

You mean this thread has gone on for 20 pages and nobody has posted a definition to support their opinion? There's no need to come to a consensus on one definition that satisfies everyone -- we can answer the question posed by the OP as it relates to individual definitions. Individuals can certainly post the definition by which they draw whatever conclusion they are arguing, and we can examine what other beliefs one might hold that qualify or disqualify one as a "skeptic" using the same defintion. It'll be fun!

(Of course, if your definition includes "but you can't be a theist" then there won't be any question.)

Same difference. If your definition is "one who follows a process of skeptical inquiry" it would certainly make sense to include the process along with the definition, for completeness. And we can still determine which beliefs can be arrived at (or not) using said process.

So let's hear it!

-Bri

Some definitions have been posted at various points. There is debate over them (of course). Some people include "but you can't be a theist", others prefer the "one who follows a process of skeptical inquiry" style. I personally don't feel that it's reasonable to include any criteria regarding beliefs because that creates a dogma which I think it the opposite of skepticism. Others disagree.

 

[voidx]

Right. I'm not claiming that popularity of an idea does affects whether or not it's true. What I'm arguing is that it is rational and reasonable to consider testimonial evidence of similar experiences which are interpreted in a consistent manner as evidence when forming an opinion.

Apparently rational and reasonable, at best. This assumes that the experiences, by simple fact of being consistent, are experiences of God. If one takes into account that there are alternate explanations for what those experiences might be, or at the very least, that there is no way to confirm that EXPERIENCE #1 = GOD, then the rational for taking the experience at face value is less valid.


This is the major disconnect. People themselves cannot explain how they make the logical connection between EXPERIENCE #1 and GOD. They simply just "know" it or "felt" it. And it is this knowing and feeling that casts doubt, or should, on the validity of their conclusion. Was it just a random experience? Is the connection to God because you actually felt God, or because of social and culture ideals that have already been learned and partly excepted and are looking for an opportunity to be justified? No one can say. And so experiences of God are, in my opinion, poor foundations for basing a conclusion upon.

When there is no objective evidence available as is the case for the existance of god, a skeptic can critically examine the testimomial and/or personal experiences they've had as part of the available evidence and NOT necessarily conclude that atheism is the only rational belief.

A problem for anyone dealing in absolutes I suppose. And yes I understand that is the title and topic of this thread. But from a more practical stand point, lets leave the term rational off. Their are different ideas and opinions and beliefs. Whatever any given atheist claims is theirs to justify and defend. It has no impact on what a theist claims and must justify. An atheist claiming their ideals are rational does not give a theist rights to say theirs are also rational given no objective evidence for deities and vice versa.

There really is only the open inquiry to the justifications used to reach any given conclusion. And there are many ways to judge and measure the validity of those justifications. That's what matters, not the tired old atheist said - theist said game.

 

[Bri]

Some definitions have been posted at various points. There is debate over them (of course). Some people include "but you can't be a theist", others prefer the "one who follows a process of skeptical inquiry" style. I personally don't feel that it's reasonable to include any criteria regarding beliefs because that creates a dogma which I think it the opposite of skepticism. Others disagree.

Obviously, "but you can't be a theist" adds a specific exception to the definition that is unwarranted.

I have no problem with "one who follows a process of skeptical inquiry" except that it's an incomplete definition until the process is defined. Specifically, any belief could easily fit the definition as long as the process of skeptical inquiry is left to the individual.

-Bri

 

[voidx]

You mean this thread has gone on for 20 pages and nobody has posted a definition to support their opinion? There's no need to come to a consensus on one definition that satisfies everyone -- we can answer the question posed by the OP as it relates to individual definitions. Individuals can certainly post the definition by which they draw whatever conclusion they are arguing, and we can examine what other beliefs one might hold that qualify or disqualify one as a "skeptic" using the same defintion. It'll be fun!

(Of course, if your definition includes "but you can't be a theist" then there won't be any question.)

Ugh. I'll pass thanks. Peoples definitions change over time, or to create wiggle room. And it then devolves into a quote war. "On page 34, post #546 you said this, which disagree's with what you said on page 40, post #678."

Same difference.

I disagree. One focus' on creating categories and everyone battling to shove people into the categories they've created so they can then tear them down.

The other is more open, and I'll admit a tad idealistic as honest evaluation of ideas is hard for pretty much all of us, it looks at how someone arrived at a conclusion. You tell me, and then we can discuss how different people see the validity of those justifications and conclusions.

If your definition is "one who follows a process of skeptical inquiry" it would certainly make sense to include the process along with the definition, for completeness. And we can still determine which beliefs can be arrived at (or not) using said process.

So let's hear it!

-Bri

Mine is simple enough. To learn as much as possible. To start off from as neutral a position as I can. To do my best to identify my own bias and the limitations of my own perceptual experiences. To understand what can be known objectively and what cannot. To recognize and fully admit where I make assumptions, and the justifications for doing so. To not assuming powers and entities and variables within the observable objective reality around me unless there is some explanatory power to them, that they help objectively explain something about the reality around me. To not be afraid of being undecided on certain topics, to admitting my ignorance. To being as aware as possilbe the affects of society and culture on my ideals and concepts of assumptions. To realize that ideas that may be emotionally comforting may not be rationally justifiable. To knowing that sometimes in practicality, emotional comfort is as important as rational justification.

To admit my largest assumption in the confidence of objective and scientific inquiry. In the method, knowing that in practice it is sometimes imperfect.

 

[SirPhilip]

You mean this thread has gone on for 20 pages and nobody has posted a definition to support their opinion?

You catch on quickly.

 

[SirPhilip]

And what about Santa ? Would it apply if some "sane adults" said they've seen him ?

Quite ironically, the only individual I've ever met that looked ideal for the part was Randi.

 

[voidx]

You catch on quickly.

Your smiley has shamed me into an admission of being overly verbose.

 

[Bri]

Ugh. I'll pass thanks. Peoples definitions change over time, or to create wiggle room. And it then devolves into a quote war. "On page 34, post #546 you said this, which disagree's with what you said on page 40, post #678."

I don't mind anyone's definition being changed and revised. That's kind of the point. If we can come up with a reasonable definition that would exclude theists, then the answer to the topic of the thread is "yes." If there is no such definition, then the answer is "no." Since it would be impossible to prove that no such definition is possible, I suspect that it is up to those who wish to exclude theists to provide a reasonable definition that would do so.

I disagree. One focus' on creating categories and everyone battling to shove people into the categories they've created so they can then tear them down.

The other is more open, and I'll admit a tad idealistic as honest evaluation of ideas is hard for pretty much all of us, it looks at how someone arrived at a conclusion. You tell me, and then we can discuss how different people see the validity of those justifications and conclusions.

They are both definitions, which is what I suggested someone who argues that a skeptic must be an atheist provide. I don't care what the definition is. If a process can be defined to exclude theism, then all the better.

Mine is simple enough. To learn as much as possible. To start off from as neutral a position as I can. To do my best to identify my own bias and the limitations of my own perceptual experiences. To understand what can be known objectively and what cannot. To recognize and fully admit where I make assumptions, and the justifications for doing so. To not assuming powers and entities and variables within the observable objective reality around me unless there is some explanatory power to them, that they help objectively explain something about the reality around me. To not be afraid of being undecided on certain topics, to admitting my ignorance. To being as aware as possilbe the affects of society and culture on my ideals and concepts of assumptions. To realize that ideas that may be emotionally comforting may not be rationally justifiable. To knowing that sometimes in practicality, emotional comfort is as important as rational justification.

To admit my largest assumption in the confidence of objective and scientific inquiry. In the method, knowing that in practice it is sometimes imperfect.

Then it seems that by your definition a skeptic doesn't have to be an atheist. Is that your position?

ETA: The possible exception is the sentence in bold, in which case we need to refine what you mean by "assume" and perhaps "objectively explain."

-Bri