Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[qayak]

Say it aint so!

"It ain't so!"

 

[articulett]

I believe god's real name is Sandy.

As a Skeptic, I do not need any evidence for this, because it is un-testable and I am not claiming any evidence.

God = Sandy

Finally we know his real name... I’m glad I figured it out. Skepticism really does work!

(HER real name.)

My students are possessed by demons. The evidence is the way they act. I'm not making any claims about the evidence--you guys aren't around to see the way they act anyhow-- I'm just using my own skeptical analysis to conclude the obvious.

 

[schlitt]

"It ain't so!"

Thanks, thats much better.

 

[schlitt]

(HER real name.)

My students are possessed by demons. The evidence is the way they act. I'm not making any claims about the evidence--you guys aren't around to see the way they act anyhow-- I'm just using my own skeptical analysis to conclude the obvious.

That’s really scary.
The prolific amount of no claimed evidence shows that it is definitely true though.

 

[articulett]

Science does not invoke the supernatural as an explanation... science only uses facts in evidence to reach conclusions. Skepticism employs the same method-- with added attention to the known ways humans are readily fooled.

Or at least that's what I thought.

But now Claus and Beth have shown me the nebulous light.

Skeptics stay on the fence until they've accumulated enough evidence to give them a subjective reason to believe something... there is no need for that reason to correspond with anything replicable or measurable so long as lots of people believe it... no one can prove it wrong and no claims about it are made that can be tested.

Truth doesn't matter-- what feels true does! (And here I thought that was the woo way of gathering information.)

 

[articulett]

That’s really scary.
The prolific amount of no claimed evidence shows that it is definitely true though.

Claus has no reason to be skeptical of it, that's for sure.

 

[Lonewulf]

This thread has shown me one thing.

TRUE skeptics need sleep.

Thus I will go to bed now.

 

[articulett]

Better read up on skepticism, you are completely wrong. When there is no evidence, a skeptic says, "I don't know what god's name is!"

A believer would make up a name and claim to "know" through some irrational line of reasoning or divine insight.

So, how long have you dreamed of becoming a skeptic?

You're right... by Beth's definition anyhow:

We don't know what God's name is. Until we have established one name or the another as fact, we have to go by some other criteria to decide whether testimony regarding god's name seems credible. Multiple sane adults testifying to the similar experiences is not an unreasonable criteria for deciding their stories have some credibility. You may certainly argue for some other criteria 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. Lot's of sane adults call god "God"--which begs the question of who named God,"God", of course. Others prefer "Allah" or "heavenly father" or "Dios" or "Jesus". Schlitt is clearly smart and sane and declares the name to be "Sandy". Bri tells us all gods are the same. And Claus tells us that so long as no claims are made there's nothing to be skeptical about.

Right Beth?

Right Claus?

We understand your position on the subject correctly now?

Because to the rest of us... any beliefs about any god or any invisible form of unconsciousness are, by definition, "unskeptical"... or at least indistinguishable from unskeptical beliefs (woo). Sure, they lie outside of scientific scrutiny-- just as all things that are indistinguishable from the imaginary do-- oh, and the imaginary too. In order to be scrutinized there needs to be some evidence that there is something existing to be scrutinized in the first place. You don't get a "get out of reality" free card by making your imaginary friend immeasurable and undetectable in any way. You can hang onto your "I'm a skeptic" label if you want-- but don't expect other skeptics to treat your beliefs with any more respect than you treat other woo.

 

[-Fran-]

The answer to the OP:s question should be the same as the answer to a question that went : "Should Skeptics, by definition, be "Adowserists?" eg. should a skeptic lack belief in dowsing (or contact with the dead, or crystals etc...)

Religion / god is not special in this regard, and should not be treated specially.

Either you say "No, what matters is not specific beliefs but how one approaches facts...", but then you must open the doors to "skeptics" that profess belief in dowsing.

Or you say "Yes, given the status of the evidence of this claim, it is not reasonable to claim to be a skeptic and believe in this." Where "this" is dowsing or belief in god/religion.

Personally I think that fundamentally, skepticism is not a set of beliefs, but a method. But I also think that there really is no realistic way for a informed "skeptic" that applies this method to end up with a belief in dowsing or god.

So my answer is that the dowser and religious person is not excluded by DEFINITION (eg. a specific belief is not included in the definition of skepticism). But excluded practically, because by the facts, ending up with such a belief requires methodology excluded by skepticism.

I agree as well. In real life people can call themselves what they want, I don't care, and who are we to stop them anyway. And they certainly can do a lot of good in helping the world become a more rational place, in many areas, as far as practical things are concerned... But no matter how they twist it, a god belief is not a more realistic conclusion with this method than the dowsing example, no.

And welcome to the forum, fellow country man

 

[-Fran-]

So because one doesn't have insight into their beliefs, or because one makes a claim of denial of using evidence, I must draw my conclusion based on their claims?

I think not.

Exactly!

Besides, we should listen to what they claim? Well, we are! They say, 'I believe in god'. I still don't understand why that must be followed by a 'and I have some reason for it, or - I have some evidence for it'? Before we can discuss it the way we have, and before we can come to a conclusion that that is not quite thinking in line with the skeptical method.

While they might not, in fact, claim the latter, the "confession" of a belief in itself is surely the same things as the former. CFLarsen says there is totally reason-free-conclusions? I don't buy that, and I don't buy that all the 'skeptic theists' here have stated with clarity that their god belief is exactly that. At least I can't see that he has explained, so far, in a satisfactory way that this is actually the case.

 

[articulett]

I'd be interested in our how our Swedish posters found this forum... and what inspired them to begin to posting...

 

[-Fran-]

I'd be interested in our how our Swedish posters found this forum... and what inspired them to begin to posting...

Myself, I claim there are no reasons for why I do, none, no ones, no reasons at all, so now you can NEVER criticise or question anything I have ever said, or ever will say

ETA:
Seriously. I found the forum already a few years back, in 2004 or 2005 I think, when I googled some woo (don't remember which) and ended up on information about the MDC which led me to the JREF.org site. I spent a few nights reading about the different applications being made, as presented in that sub-forum. I thought it was very interesting, and hilarious. Then I forgot about the forum, but kept looking for information and fact on the net to learn more about things and to better be able to express my atheism and skepticism in various claims in woo that I heard around me. One day earlier this year I stumbled upon the forum again, and this time spent a lot of time reading several subforums. I realized that I really liked the forum, and decided that maybe I had something to say as well, so I joined.

Now, I am not sure that I actually have something good to say, but I still like it, so I still hang around.

 

[articulett]

I'm glad you're around. I had actually been to a few TAMS (held in my city after all) and knew a bit about James Randi and his challenge from Skeptic magazine or the Skeptical Inquirer... and then I lurked... developed a thicker skin... and posted on milder forums-- until I got bold enough and thick skinned enough to begin posting here. I thought some of the people here were so smart and funny... I wanted to be a part of it... and it felt good to finally say what I had been keeping to myself--to find kindred folks who thought like I did... whom I could trust and learn from and laugh with and commiserate with.

 

[-Fran-]

I'm glad you're around.

Thanks I am glad to have met you and the others, as well!

I had actually been to a few TAMS (held in my city after all) and knew a bit about James Randi and his challenge from Skeptic magazine or the Skeptical Inquirer...

I'm a bit jealous I only know of these things through the net, and will probably never be able to afford to come over and visit a TAM (which I guess disqualifies me as a good recruit )

When I ran into the forum and the MDC subforum the first time, I actually realized I had heard of Randi before. Swedish TV had shown a program a few years earlier, with Randi, about testing homeopathy for the MDC. But it never stuck with me then (more than that I now knew exactly what homeopathy claims). I forgot about the MDC, and re-discovered it later here.

and then I lurked... developed a thicker skin... and posted on milder forums-- until I got bold enough and thick skinned enough to begin posting here.

It does require some tough hide sometimes

I thought some of the people here were so smart and funny... I wanted to be a part of it...

Yes, that's what struck me as well while I was lurking here before I joined. I learnt a lot, but it also gave me so many good laughs.

and it felt good to finally say what I had been keeping to myself--to find kindred folks who thought like I did... whom I could trust and learn from and laugh with and commiserate with.

That is an important part for me as well. A place to vent, and to talk to and learn from people who understands where I'm coming from. Most of my friends and relatives (if not all of them really) are woo in some way or other and though I love them, and we have many other things in common, I did feel rather alone with my thoughts.

The ironic thing, and somewhat fitting to this thread, is that the ones of my closest friends that I can come closest to talk of these things, the one of them who is better educated than me, who is the smartest of them all, who actually understands the best what and how I think... Is a Christian.

So, yes I can sympathise with the ones here that says that it is fully possible to get along with a "skeptic theist" because she is one, and she's smart funny and well-educated. But she knows where I stand with this, and she is also fully capable of not being on the defensive about it, and can handle me pointing the inconsistency out, if it comes up. We can not meet when it comes to that thing. Though we respect each other, and we simply just don't talk about it very often. It works in real life. But I do need to vent here sometimes.

ETA:
Though I must say that for me it was most a question about that I thought no one understood me. It was never that the climate for atheists felt hostile on the whole. It seems in the USA there's a general distrust about atheists and atheism? It's not like that here in Sweden. There's no hostility or distrust among people in general, only among very marginalized fundy Christian groups. I even had a pen friend for many years (also Swedish, that I also met a few times) who was a pentecostal (she belived in Demons by the way ) and she knew all along that I was an atheist. We had our disagreements about certain facts, but she never tried to convert me, and seemed fine with me being an atheist, never seemed to distrust me. We exchanged letters for almost 20 years. So, I think the climate is a bit different in Sweden when it comes to this. But even if you can openly show your atheism and skepticism with no larger reactions, it doesn't mean that woo beliefs aren't widespread and that you don't feel lonely with the way you think.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....


1) How the heck do you know when you have "insight" into someone's beliefs?

2) What do you mean, "claim of denial of using evidence"?

Re#1) Interesting that you would lack insight into this skill. It's hardly a controversial issue.

First, I can certainly draw a conclusion based on evidence that a person is less than truthful. There may be all sorts of evidence in addition to what the person claims.

Second, denial is a very common human defense mechanism. It isn't just alcoholics underestimating their drinking pattern, but denial in drug addiction is the classic example and it is a very well documented phenomenon.

So a person who is not truthful may also not be aware of their lack of truthfulness. It doesn't have to be conscious or willful lying.

In this case we are looking at a logic problem. You are claiming a person can believe something without evidence. I view the same problem as a person believing something without any reason. Further refining the matter we have Georg who came up with an example you were either unwilling or unable to. He proposed a reason for believing not dependent upon evidence.

Gods were invented independently in a lot of different cultures as an explanation for things that could not be explained otherwise at that time (thunder, sun etc.). This seems to be an indicator for humans desperately looking for something to fill the gaps in their knowledge.
Of course nowadays the gaps for the gods to hide get pretty small, but as long as science can´t explain how the whole stuff got going, or whatever initiated the big bang, some people will use the deities as an explanation.

I responded with

I would also challenge your assumptions. You are assuming god is inserted to explain "no evidence". I would conclude god is inserted only after falsely interpreting events as having a causal relationship. In other words you are saying god gets inserted when we run out of ideas. I say god is inserted when we misinterpret evidence.

I await his reply. He has a point and I am waiting to see how he addresses my view of his point.

This still all boils down to my opinion the skeptic god believer rationalizes and invents definitions for gods that allow his/her cognitive dissonance and your opinion those invented god definitions are legitimate.

Re#2) The skeptic deist in your scenario claims not to be using evidence, I don't believe that is the case. I believe the evidence they are using doesn't meet their skeptical standards so rather than actually face up to that, they invent a definition of god that requires no evidence. Would that same skeptic accept someone saying, "I believe I have a parallel self in another universe and science cannot test that belief"?

Would the skeptic not ask, "What evidence do you have for that belief?"

And then would the skeptic accept the claim of, "I don't need any evidence, science cannot test anything outside of the Universe."

You may wish to leave such a person unchallenged since they did not "claim any evidence". That's just an arbitrary choice to allow the blind spot which isn't bothering anyone. You have compartmentalized "irrational" as separate from skeptical as if the two did not conflict with each other. It's the same as claiming faith and science can exist in separate compartments giving the skeptic god believer a way around that cognitive dissonance. It's the same as allowing god to be re-defined as an OK belief without evidence.

All that is well and good but it is still a blind spot, an exception for certain woo god beliefs but not for others. It is still rationalizing in order to live with cognitive dissonance. And it still doesn't contradict what I said earlier, "Those of us not making the exception for god beliefs can see such beliefs are supported with evidence of the same quality as woo beliefs are supported. Those making the exception for god beliefs are going to great lengths to describe god in ways that supposedly make their specific god beliefs an exception to woo beliefs."

 

[Bri]

Do you believe in demons?

Me? No. But I'm not sure what my personal beliefs have to do with it.

Should a skeptic, by definition, be an a-demonist (not believe in demons)?

I can't think of any valid definition for "skeptic" that would preclude belief in demons. Can you?

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.

I agree that there is probably as little evidence of demons as there is of gods. And similar to gods, there is also little evidence that there are no demons.

But upon what evidence do you base your claim that the probability that there are no demons is greater than the probability that there are demons? I'm not aware of any evidence in support of either belief.

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?

I entirely agree.

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.

Then I think we are in agreement.

A lot of atheists call themselves skeptics because they define themselves by an eagerness to understand reality...

As do a lot of theists.

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...

You're not interested in things that cannot be proven? I know many self-proclaimed skeptics who regularly hold beliefs without proof -- such beliefs are often known as "opinions." I know a lot of skeptics who have opinions on any number of topics, from whether or not George Bush is a good president to whether abortion is ethical to whether there is intelligent life outside of our solar system. None can be proven, of course, but lots of people have beliefs about them. Some who have beliefs about these things even consider themselves skeptics. You might even be one of them!

...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'm not sure that I have any sorts of numbers on how many people who are interested in real and measurable truths are atheists as opposed to theists, but I'm fairly sure that nearly all atheists and theists hold beliefs without proof.

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.

I'm not sure we can accurately calculate the probability of gods existing or not existing any more than we can for demons. Or intelligent life outside of our solar system.

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 word "faith" also means "belief without proof." To the credit of theists, I think that the vast majority readily admit that they don't know for certain that God exists, and in fact that's why they say that their belief is based on faith rather than fact. In other words, most theists are agnostic about the existence of God, even though they believe that God exists. Similarly, most strong atheists are agnostic about the existence of gods, even though they believe that no gods exist.

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.

Do you have respect for people who believe that intelligent life exists outside the solar system? I'm sorry, but the beliefs of theists should be respected as much as the beliefs of strong atheists or anyone else with an opinion about any topic for which there is no proof. Beliefs don't necessarily preclude the search for truth.

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.

I don't think that any belief necessarily deserves disrespect unless there is clearly evidence against it. Ultimately, the important thing is not what a person believes, but whether the person understands the strength of the evidence for their belief.

To me it always seems like puffery to keep the delusion alive by putting non believers down.

I agree with the general sentiment about not putting down those who have a different opinion than you do, although I find it ironic that you stated it as you did.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

While they are not easy to find among 20 22 pages there have been several definitions proposed and I think to a general consensus.

Yes, both of those are essentially "a skeptic is one who practices the methodology/application of skepticism" without defining the methodology of skepticism. I was hoping that someone might have posted the actual process by which we might determine that a skeptic may or may not be a theist.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Either you say "No, what matters is not specific beliefs but how one approaches facts...", but then you must open the doors to "skeptics" that profess belief in dowsing.

Generally, dowsing can be tested, although I imagine that not all claims of dowsing can be. It would be difficult to test for the existence of gods or of intelligent life outside of the solar system. I can think of no definition of "skeptic" that would prohibit belief in either one, as long as one understands the evidence (or lack thereof) for the specific belief one holds.

But perhaps I lack imagination. If you have such a definition, please share it!

-Bri

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, both of those are essentially "a skeptic is one who practices the methodology/application of skepticism" without defining the methodology of skepticism. I was hoping that someone might have posted the actual process by which we might determine that a skeptic may or may not be a theist.

-Bri

I don't think the methodology is much in doubt. There are some who just don't get it, but the rest of us generally do.

The Universe can be explained through natural processes. Conclusions about the Universe and the natural processes within it are best discovered by means of the Scientific method^WP (which Wiki has a reasonable description of).

Care to further elaborate which part of this is not clear?

If I use the scientific method to determine what a skeptic is or isn't, I come up with the same conclusion as has been stated. In this specific question, a skeptic would use the skeptical means of determining whether or not gods exist. However, one is not excluded from being a skeptic by simply choosing to apply skepticism selectively, within reason. The skeptic should however, recognize they are making an exception to skepticism in whatever area they choose to not apply skeptical principles.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Generally, dowsing can be tested, although I imagine that not all claims of dowsing can be. It would be difficult to test for the existence of gods or of intelligent life outside of the solar system. I can think of no definition of "skeptic" that would prohibit belief in either one, as long as one understands the evidence (or lack thereof) for the specific belief one holds.

But perhaps I lack imagination. If you have such a definition, please share it!

-Bri

You are taking the approach a skeptic can believe in anything which is not proved otherwise. That's everything by using the principle one cannot prove a negative. I think you miss the boat here altogether.

Skeptical principles are to look for natural explanations for things and to use the scientific process to draw the best conclusions about the nature of things. Just believing willy nilly in things which cannot be disproved is not a skeptical position.