Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Dancing David]

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.

What is the evidence for the existance of God?

What evidence of god can not be explained through the workings of perception association and conditioning?

What evidence is there that the 'feeling' that a diety exists is not just a byproduct of human existance?


Do you know how you see stuff in the blind spot of your visual field?
Do you know how you see most of the colors of a sunset?
Do you know what confabulated memories are?
How about the 'superstition' of classical behaviorism?

What data indicates that there is a diety?

You still haven't given your citations for evidence that religion has beneficial effects on people.

 

[articulett]

Bri,
Do you believe in demons? Should a skeptic, by definition, be an a-demonist (not believe in demons)? A persons "evidence" for demons (or Satan) is on par with most god believers evidence-- cultural indoctrination, correlation, confirmation bias, primal feelings, etc. Plus, they are mentioned in scriptures. From an objective perspective they are probably all false... and very likely a product of human culture and imagination. We also know that many gods of the past fit into the same category. So, it would be normal for most skeptics to treat god claims similarly--and for the exact same reasons. Right?

Nobody has said that theists can't be skeptics--we've already determined these are labels that people give themselves anyhow... and everyone is free to hold their opinion about who does or doesn't share their label-- just like Christians. A lot of atheists call themselves skeptics because they define themselves by an eagerness to understand reality... not just by their lack of belief in any deity. To a nonbeliever, a lack of belief in a god is the same as a lack of belief in demons. It doesn't define what you are. But when I identify myself as a skeptic or hear someone else identify themselves as such--then I assume that they are as interested in the the things that can be proven as I am... about the real and measurable truths--and the ways that people fool themselves... I assume they have views similar to prominent known skeptics... and I presume that the majority are atheistic or at least don't hold to a personal sort of god.

I think that any rational person would find the prospect of gods as unlikely as the prospect of demons. And for the same reasons. Which makes, god just a comfort or a feeling or a "belief" in something that doesn't do anything and can't be measured... it is no different from a delusion... there is nothing that separates it from the imaginary.

It has nothing to do with "god-hating" or leaving people out... it's just that skepticism can and does lead one to question one's own beliefs much of the time, and few beliefs can stand up to skeptical scrutiny. And we know that people can have really strong faith in things that aren't true.

The thing that bothers me about some believers here is they seem to demand that skeptics "respect" their "beliefs". But skepticism isn't about respecting beliefs. It's about finding the evidence and discovering what is and isn't true. The truth doesn't need to be respected--it needs to be understood. I don't think faith and belief are respect-worthy. I like facts and truth-- I'm not so interested in peoples opinions and feelings unless they are equally interested in mine-- and personal experiences are subjective evidence--they're great for telling you what you like -- they suck for telling you objective truths.

While it can be true that you believe in god-- that doesn't make your god true or any god true. It makes your god on par with demons. We know for certain people believe in them. But that is no reason to respect those beliefs or to believe ourselves or to pretend that we consider such people as "skeptical". That is no reason to give actual validity to such beliefs especially when we understand where such beliefs come from.

Billions of people believing in demons and swearing by experiences, does not make demons real. It makes the belief real-- and the facts that we can find out about the brain and culture and so forth are all real. But not the demons. I see no reason for any skeptic to treat gods differently except for it making them feel good or safe or chosen or "righteous" or compassionate... etc. And even then--it doesn't make it true. To me it always seems like puffery to keep the delusion alive by putting non believers down. Is there some reason why your god deserves more respect than demons?

 

[articulett]

Substituting Satan for God...

Originally Posted by Beth
We don't know whether Satan 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 Satan 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 Satan doesn't seem like an unbiased assessment of the evidence to me.


Does Beth agree with this same statement when it comes to Satan? If not, why not? Lots of people claim to have been possessed or know of people being possessed... dismissing such testimony because you don't believe in Satan is biased, isn't it, Beth?

 

[JoeEllison]

I've changed my mind... skeptics SHOULD be atheists.

Get cracking on that, theistic pseudo-skeptics! I expect a progress report a week from now.

 

[-Fran-]

I've changed my mind... skeptics SHOULD be atheists.

Get cracking on that, theistic pseudo-skeptics! I expect a progress report a week from now.

 

[Egg]

A simple test would be, "Do the findings obtained through skeptical research apply to all people, or only those people who believe skepticism to be valid?"

I can think of plenty of examples (Modern medicine and computers to name but two), but I can't think of anything discovered through skeptical research that would be a counter-example.

If the findings are applicable outside of those people who believe in the methods used to obtain them, then they are a better approximation of reality than something that cannot be applied universally.

We're still in the position of needing a method to judge if the findings are applicable to everyone. If we use skepticism, wouldn't it just be trying to prove itself with itself?

As for whether skepticism is always reliable - so far it has been. Of course, adopting a skeptical view I have to concede that in the future it is possible that we may find a situation in which skepticism doesn't work. But until that counter-example is found, if it even exists, it is reasonable to say that skepticism always works to the same degree of certainty as I can say that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

I'm not sure how we could say that we know that it has been. If skepticism only allows validation if the skeptical approach has been used, how could we know if skepticism doesn't miss things? Aside from error and the fallibility of those interpreting the evidence, if, for example, the doubting process required in skepticism somehow skewed the results itself because of some kind of bias involving people only seeing what they expect to see, would skepticism be able to pick that up in every case?

When skepticism is applied, does the belief stand up to scrutiny? If yes, then it is not irrational, if no then it is irrational.

Doesn't this suggest that we can't trust our own senses, memories and thought processes, let alone anyone else's? Beliefs that everyone holds are based on such things and many wouldn't stand up to skeptic scrutiny. By this definition, it would be irrational for me to believe what my mother said was the first word I spoke and irrational for my mother to believe that it was my first word. It would be irrational to believe that I like the things I like. If we follow this logic through, anything I learn at all could be an irrational belief, because when I'm taught, I have no idea if what my teacher is saying will stand up to scrutiny and I can't trust my memory to have learned it accurately, nor my thought processes to have understood it correctly. It would just be by sheer luck if any of my beliefs stand up to someone else's scrutiny and are therefore objectively deemed rational.

With all due respect, that's not how peer review works. The objections you raise are the very things that peer review is designed to catch - that it has passed such a process is indicative of a reasonable degree of scientific rigour.

One would also not want to posit some sort of scientific peer review conspiracy without any evidence to support the claim.

You're probably right about the particular points I raised, but my point was really more about trusting your own judgement, than trying to suggest any flaws in the peer review process. The old guy who lives in a cottage by the loch, who (so long as he comes alone) has been feeding crab-sticks every day to Nessie for the last 30 years, would just laugh at piles of rigorously checked scientific evidence that show that it's almost impossible for a monster to be living in the loch. Just because everyone else thinks he a nutter, doesn't mean he's wrong or irrational to trust his own judgement.

If I did my own experiments in my basement on something, would it be reasonable to believe my own results?

Depends on whether or not your results could stand up to scrutiny or not.

"Could" or "do"? If I think they could stand up to scrutiny, is it reasonable to believe my own results or would it only be reasonable after such scrutiny? If someone else's scrutiny disagrees, why should I believe their results over my own? I know what I saw far better than I know what they saw.

You should apply skepticism in all parts of your life, yes, but to have a blind spot is to simply be human.

Also, you say that to judge whether or not it is raining we use subjective experience - I don't quite follow your reasoning here. I can see the rain, as can any others underneath or near the rain cloud. I can hear the rain - again, as can others. And most importantly, if I step into the rain, I will get wet - something that I and others can objectively observe.

I don't see how you can claim that it is subjective evidence we use to tell us whether or not it is raining...

If I am alone somewhere and it rains, it may as well be a subjective experience, just like seeing the monster. There could be other explanations for my experience, so I shouldn't trust that it's actually raining on this evidence alone. Someone comes along and shouts "Hey, get out of the rain! You'll be soaked through to the skin!", but this is anecdotal evidence, so I can't trust that either...anyway you get the idea. I'm trying to determine whether one really should apply skepticism to all parts of their life, or whether such an approach leads to madness and probably an early death.

 

[articulett]

Subjective experiences are fine for opinions or for facts that don't matter--but when it comes to actual reality and the facts that are same for everybody--I would imagine that the majority would come to the same conclusions about those facts--for example, the shape and dimensions of our planet, the speed of light, DNA, etc.

God doesn't even have evidence on par with what your mother says... because your mother is a real person who is likely to have witnessed your first words... you can find out or verify as much as you can and believe it as strongly as you want. But god isn't about anyone's firsthand experience. You know you existed and you had a "first word"--nobody knows anything about a god except what has been told to them and what they "feel". That is the same as feelings and teachings about demons.

I wouldn't expect that anyone who calls themselves a skeptic would hold beliefs that are indistinguishable from known ways people fool themselves--this includes belief in invisible entities--gods, souls, demons, etc. To me, they are all the same. I understand their source and why they might seem real... but also why they are very unlikely to be real.

And what difference would a god make who can't be verified any more than a schizophrenic delusion can be? Sure, skeptics can believe what they want--but I think most skeptics would find beliefs in invisible entities irrational. I, personally, think it's irrational to hold strong beliefs in consciousness existing outside of a living brain. I don't see how it's possible. I can't pretend that it's rational or magical or something humans haven't come near discovering in all their years of searching. I can't pretend not to know all the ways humans have been fooling themselves for eons... how I've fooled myself... how easy it is... how intelligent and honest the nonbelievers sound to me as a group compared to the believers.

"get out of the rain" is a warning... as is "you'll get soaked to the skin"-- no one considers it "divine knowledge" or part of some hidden truth that mustn't be questioned. No one expects special respect for such warnings. Nobody gives it more weight than it deserves. It amazes me at how sloppy the reasoning is here. It's like the believers cannot separate an opinion from a fact. I'd be glad to treat god as an opinion--and give it the same credence that the god believers give Satan or demons or engrams. But theists want it granted mores rational as belief. But they haven't made a case for that. They have not made a case for why we should treat their god belief any different than demon belief or a political opinion.

That is something that religious belief kind of encourages... this fuzzy boundary about "truth" and "facts" and "evidence"-- it makes it murky and uses semantics so that god can fit in with the rational... but god can't fit in with the rational any more than demons can.

The advice about rain can be placed in context... why would a stranger lie about the rain?... have strangers warned you of weather before...? we know it rains and we know humans show concern for other humans and what would the harm be for believing or not believing? Atheists and skeptics don't seem to have the dilemmas you've imagined, Egg.

We have no corresponding former knowledge about gods. I'd say when it comes to things that are indistinguishable from known delusions including invisible immeasurable entities without a living brain-- most skeptics would say they don't exist-- none of them-- until or unless objective measurable evidence shows otherwise. Unless there is evidence, I think most skeptics will treat gods like demons and fairies and engrams and hobgoblins. That doesn't lead to madness or early death-- it was a great recipe for Bertrand Russel amongst many others. It works for Randi. It's a recipe for sanity and real true useful knowledge from what I can see.

What's wrong with saying that skeptics generally treat god belief similarly to the way they treat demon belief? If that bugs someone, why? If they think this is invalid-- why?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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. ...

You know it didn't even register with me who repeated the 50|50 statement, it just triggered my autopilot reply. No need to defend your position. You're on the 'right' side of the debate.

 

[articulett]

It's not that science and evidence can prove everything or that they are always right--but they do have an error correcting mechanism that faith does not have. And no guru who has discovered or uncovered anything prescient or useful or true--whereas, it's an every day thing for scientists. On top of that, science takes into account the known ways humans fool themselves. What else does that. We can't know if we are missing something--but we can point out that when scientists don't know the answer-- that doesn't mean the gurus do. They never have. Nobody CAN know if god is real-- so it's automatically arrogant to presume they can and do via some subjective whatever--

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree those people have to base their belief on something.
I do not agree that it has to be evidence.....

Say you decided to believe after thinking about Pascal's wager. The wager isn't evidence per se. But you'd be in denial if you claimed that nothing else at all went into your decision to believe.

What I am saying is claiming you are using 'no' evidence is always going to be a false claim. If there really were 'no' evidence, you wouldn't believe. As I said, unless you want to say the belief resulted from some genetic mandate like my dog's hunting behavior, then it was based on things you considered and evaluated, IE evidence. I don't happen to buy the genetic hypothesis but some people have presented it and the evidence is insufficient at this time to know.

But from my point of view, when a skeptic claims they have this 'faith' and no evidence is involved, what they really have is cognitive dissonance and claiming evidence isn't needed is their means of reconciling. I call that rationalizing, not reconciling.

There is no doubt that my conclusions that god beliefs are all equally unsupportable contributes here to my skepticism that people are believing without evidence. Rather it is clear to me they are believing with invalid evidence. If you recognize there is no Zeus and no Pele, you ought to be able to recognize there is no 'God' of the Bible either. Claiming you believe without evidence while otherwise being skeptical about everything else including Zeus and Pele is just plain and simple denial. There is no magical "faith" which explains belief without evidence any more than there are magical gods.

 

[articulett]

Or if there were equivocal evidence a skeptic could and probably should fence sit or in other words, take the agnostic position.

This is the problem I have and keep referring to as the elephant in the room. There is evidence to make a determination of the most likely explanation for god beliefs. The evidence is overwhelming that god beliefs are made up. I doubt any skeptic thinks Pele or Zeus really exist.

No evidence exists that other god beliefs are the result of encounters with real gods whether it be encounters solely in one's head or more direct physical encounters from 6,000 years ago. A Jesus Christ today would probably be less believable than L Ron Hubbard or maybe just as believable as Joseph Smith.

The Bible is clearly full of myths. Skeptics would not believe the YEC stuff and we continually reject Intelligent Design.

Yet with all that one is supposed to be agnostic about the existence of gods? Is that same skeptic agnostic about the existence of gods controlling volcano eruptions and lightning bolts? No, that's been discarded. Is prayer answered? The evidence so far suggests not. Are any mythical creation stories accepted? No, we have contrary evidence against creation myths as well.

What is left? I propose there is nothing left.

Claus, you argue that Deists believe without evidence. I say one had something to base the belief on. You claim I cannot imagine a belief not based on evidence therefore I don't see it.

I don't lack a vision of believing without evidence, I recognize that decisions to believe anything have something which initiated the belief. Unless you are claiming that the decision to believe in a deity is a genetic mandate like my dogs' instinct to hunt, then something occurred in the believer's life which led to the decision to believe. Whatever that something was was taken as evidence by that believer.

Describe a hypothetical scenario leading up to a person becoming a Deist. You cannot do so without including an event or events which resulted in the belief. You might not define those events as including some kind of evidence, but you would have to leave something out of the hypothetical scenario (likely something akin to Beth's feeling it within) in order to have a person believe without evidence.

They are basing the decision to believe on something. It cannot be based on nothing. If nothing triggered the decision to believe, then the belief would not have occurred. And since something had to occur first before the belief occurred, I identify that as evidence a decision was based on. The fact it was not evidence a skeptic would use does not absolve the person of making an unskeptical decision to believe. Just saying one isn't using evidence is simple denial. So you and others are labeling it something else. You are labeling the basis of the decision to believe as "irrational" and "not based on evidence." The person is using evidence that if they took a closer look, they might have to face the fact it was unconvincing evidence.

(ETA, I missed the comma in your statement which I misunderstood in previous posts.)

I liked this post.

Yes... to assert belief is to assert "something"... I believe x because of y...

Belief in a god isn't free floating "belief"... there's an "object" (god) that one believes exists despite any actual measurable evidence... so what is reason for the belief? It feels true? Fear of not believing? Early indoctrination? Wanting it to be true? I think all the words and evasions and semantics are to protect believers from looking at what they actually believe and why--because they aren't ready to let go of their beliefs... they want to believe... they want to believe that it's rational to believe in whatever god they imagine. I just can't see a reason to give god belief any more respect or possibility than demon belief.

 

[articulett]

Say you decided to believe after thinking about Pascal's wager. The wager isn't evidence per se. But you'd be in denial if you claimed that nothing else at all went into your decision to believe.

What I am saying is claiming you are using 'no' evidence is always going to be a false claim. If there really were 'no' evidence, you wouldn't believe. As I said, unless you want to say the belief resulted from some genetic mandate like my dog's hunting behavior, then it was based on things you considered and evaluated, IE evidence. I don't happen to buy the genetic hypothesis but some people have presented it and the evidence is insufficient at this time to know.

But from my point of view, when a skeptic claims they have this 'faith' and no evidence is involved, what they really have is cognitive dissonance and claiming evidence isn't needed is their means of reconciling. I call that rationalizing, not reconciling.

There is no doubt that my conclusions that god beliefs are all equally unsupportable contributes here to my skepticism that people are believing without evidence. Rather it is clear to me they are believing with invalid evidence. If you recognize there is no Zeus and no Pele, you ought to be able to recognize there is no 'God' of the Bible either. Claiming you believe without evidence while otherwise being skeptical about everything else including Zeus and Pele is just plain and simple denial. There is no magical "faith" which explains belief without evidence any more than there are magical gods.

Yes. And theists like to say that they are all the same god... so that's why I use demons. Most skeptic theists do not believe in demons. And I think they should similarly disbelieve in gods... Like you note, to me they are clearly using confirmation bias-- invalid evidence... to support the conclusions they want. They want to believe in a god... so they find evidence to support that belief. They don't want to believe in demons, so they find it easy to disregard evidence for such things (claims of possession, tragedies, etc.)

I am not a "god hater" anymore than I am a "demon hater". I just think they are so obviously cut from the same primitive imaginary cloth.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

If you read what most people have written here, I don't recall any arguing the god believing person isn't a skeptic. We are saying god believing isn't compatible with the skeptical philosophy so a god believing skeptic has a blind spot. That doesn't mean they are not a skeptic. If the majority of your conclusions are not evidence based (defined as valid evidence here) then you would have a hard time supporting the claim you were a skeptic.

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

It doesn't change the blind spot argument.

Whoa.

We were talking about evidence, not events.

I am merely asking you to give a single example how your belief without evidence could occur. You claim it exists, you claim I simply lack a vision of it (rather than correctly calling BS on it) yet you cannot describe anything about it other than to claim it exists.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...And?

Nothing in particular, I was just moved to comment by some internal "feeling".

...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.

But does the term really give you the connotation of a female 'hero'?

Never mind, too much of a side track.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to clarify my position on this issue, I never suggested the 50/50 thing. ....

Again, sorry. It's baggage from the other thread. I don't know about Fran, but I didn't attribute the issue to anyone in particular here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It comes down to Bayes theorem, a.....

Aaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!! Shoo. Go Away!

Just kidding. Welcome to the forum.

 

[articulett]

I loved the Bayes post too (Bayesian probabilities are a big thing in genetics) ... Plus, it's correct.

Moreover it supports my contention that most skeptics become non believers most probably as a result of practicing their skepticism... When you have one reality and many data points, you just keep getting a clearer picture of that reality... there tends to be a convergence of viewpoints towards the "truth that is the same for everybody".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

I nominated your post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3203464#post3203464

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What's IPU, again ?

Invisible Pink Unicorns is correct.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... 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 keep using this argument. Their 'feelings' may be evidence. Their conclusions as to what those 'feelings' mean is not evidence.

I see I may have missed one of your longer posts a ways back about the MRI. The MRI evidence you gave as an example does not indicate people correctly interpret brain activity. It took the machine to identify brain activity that was consistent with lying. The fact the brain activity was consistent with lying could be verified by actually testing. To claim the brain activity is consistent with real gods and therefore is evidence of gods is not the same at all. You could probably find the brain activity, and it might even be consistent among believers. It still is not evidence people are correctly interpreting it as the result of gods. The brain activity is the evidence. The interpretation of the meaning of the brain activity is not evidence.