Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[CFLarsen]

And they claim to believe. Now, how can they believe and not think what they believe in exists ?

Read on.

And if they DO believe that what they believe in exists, then, automatically, they are claiming that it exists, aren't they ?

They would, if they believed that what they believe in exists. But they don't.

I accept that their beliefs exist and that it may give them peace of mind. What does that have to do with anything ?

Let's say you are a Bergsonian. You believe in his ideas. As weirdo as those ideas may seem to others, they give you peace of mind. Your belief exists.

But what you believe in, does not exist. It's an idea - a concept, if you like.

Change "Bergsonian" to "Deist". Then, you're there.

I suppose we can look at past governments and determine if they were succesful or not, and use that as a basis for arguing future governments. It would be by no means an exact science, but it would be better than voting republican just because your daddy always did.

That's interesting. Very interesting.

Using skepticism, which political party in the US has been the most successful?

 

[Big Les]

I'm not saying it is unskeptical.

I'm saying that it is outside the scope of skepticism. I've been saying this all along.

Do you understand this?

Yes, of course I do. I have acknowledged as much several times, it's just that when I then disagree with you, you refuse to leave it at that and assert that your take on scepticism is the only possible one.

I agree with Belz on the other hand that belief = belief in existence = claim of existence. Particularly when you remember that what we are actually talking about is whether belief in god itself is sceptical, not whether this is articulated to anyone else. It's not about what "we" can do to test for their god, it's whether it's sceptical for them to believe it in the first place.

The reason I took your claim to not be saying it is sceptical as a sign of agreement, is that within the believer's minds, they are not being sceptical when they conceive of and then maintain, this belief in god.

But as you rightly point out, you have also been saying that as well as it not being sceptical, it's also not unsceptical, because you have decided that anything that we outside their mind cannot test, is beyond the aegis of scepticism.

I, we - understand what you're saying, but disagree with you that it follows (re your definition of belief), or that it's necessarily true (provisional conclusion using available evidence being good enough for most sceptics).

 

[Steven Howard]

They would, if they believed that what they believe in exists. But they don't.

Your claim needs evidence and your pronouns need antecedents. Who are "they," exactly? What are their names? How do you know that they don't believe that what they believe in exists?

 

[CFLarsen]

Your claim needs evidence and your pronouns need antecedents. Who are "they," exactly? What are their names? How do you know that they don't believe that what they believe in exists?

Deists.

Keep up, please.

 

[Lonewulf]

Try not to let some of the more militant atheists around here turn you off of this place.

How right you are! Militant and proud of it!

I sleep with an AK-47 under my pillow!

 

[Bri]

No, we cannot know if a proposition is true without supporting evidence. Until such time as evidence is provided, the default position is one of non-existance. You cannot provide evidence for the non-existance of an object.

This is a criteria that was not in your definition (that the default position must be non-existence for propositions involving the existence of something). I have no problem with that, but I'm just pointing out that your definition was inadequate to address this case.

The problem is that you also cannot provide evidence for the non-existence of intelligent aliens, so by that criteria, the default position ought to be one of non-existence.

Here we hit upon a problem - what is your definition of 'conclusive' evidence? How much evidence is required, and of what type, before it is considered 'conclusive'? I would say that there the evidence for evolution is conclusive. I would say the same about the germ theory of disease.

Exactly my point -- there is no definition of "conclusive" that can determine how much evidence is required and of what type. I tend to agree that the evidence for evolution and the germ theory of disease are indeed so overwhelming that they would qualify as "conclusive," but there is no objective, clear line between what is conclusive and what is not conclusive. Which is precisely why I don't think you can come up with a definition for "skepticism" that will allow us to objectively determine whether a given proposition is skeptical or not.

But you also hit upon another point - you say that the method is inconclusive. That is false. The method is complete - the answer we arrive at in the face of missing or incorrectly interpreted evidence is inconclusive, tentative at best.

I could only have meant that the results of the method aren't necessarily conclusive -- that you cannot necessarily use the method to determine whether a given proposition is skeptical or not.

Why do you consider that a bad thing? I would argue that an inconclusive answer is a good thing for this method to provide, as it tells us that something about our evidence is not right - it has been incorrectly interpreted or there is some missing.

I don't consider that a bad thing. What gave you the impression that I did?

Skepticism does not deal in absolutes, it forces us to examine our beliefs and tells us what beliefs we should, at least tentatively or temporarily, lend our support to and accept as fact. The unchangable and the certain are the domain of faith, along with an inaccurate and often dangerous view of the world. I will take the uncertain accuracy of skepticism over the blind inaccuracy of faith any day.

I disagree. Skepticism tells us that we should never accept anything as fact unless it actually is fact. And only in cases where the evidence clearly points to a particular conclusion can skepticism necessarily tell us which conclusion to lend our support to.

If my answer were, "Yes, P and ~P are both skeptical," I would have said that instead of what I did say. You are oversimplifying the matter, and it bores and annoys me - don't tell me what I should say and don't tell me what I meant to say. I choose my words carefully, and I choose my words for a reason. If you disagree with my words you are welcome to make your case - you are not welcome to change my words so that they seem to support your oversimplified strawman notion of skepticism.

Here is what you did say in response to my query about whether both P and ~P can be skeptical according to your definition given that there is valid evidence for each:

If it is possible to reach different conclusions based on the same evidence, then all conclusions reached via skepticism are reasonable positions to hold, with the obvious concession that as different positions can be reached given the same evidence, there is either a flaw somewhere in our understanding of the evidence, or there is missing evidence.

For that, you'll have to talk to someone who works in the evolutionary sciences. I, personally, have very little knowledge of exactly what the world was like in the past - there are, however, many scientists who do have reasonable hypotheses as to how life may have developed, and what the conditions were like. Not only that, but we know of many conditions under which life thrives merely by looking at the world around us and noting the multitude of environments capable of supporting life.

It is true that we know of many varied conditions under which life can survive, but we have very little knowledge of the conditions under which life developed. Nor do we know how close conditions must be to those conditions under which life on this planet developed. And, yes, there are scientists who have reasonable hypotheses as to how life may have developed, and what the conditions were like, but that's not quite the same thing as "we are aware of the conditions under which at least one form of intelligent life can arrive - us."

We won't have any evidence of that life until we actually send something off to check, but that doesn't make the hypothesis automatically unreasonable or unskeptical.

According to your definition, only propositions with valid evidence would be considered skeptical, so this one wouldn't qualify. So you seem to be modifying the definition again, which again I have no problem with. But by what criteria can we determine whether a hypothesis is skeptical or unskeptical when there is a lack of evidence?

Except we have additional relevant information regarding the possibility of extraterrestrial life that we do not have regarding god. That is the reason that one can apply skepticism to claims about the existence of extraterrestrial life and decide that it is probable, or highly likely.

Sure, one can decide that it is probable, or highly likely, or one can just as easily decide that it is improbable, or highly unlikely. We simply don't know the conditions under which intelligent life on this planet developed, nor do we know how close conditions must be to those unknown conditions for intelligent life to develop, nor can we determine the probability of those unknown conditions under which intelligent life can develop occurring elsewhere. Some scientists believe that a certain event (or series of events) occurred that were very specific to our planet which caused the development of intelligent life, and therefore those scientists assign a very low probability to the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system. Other scientists believe that the conditions are not specific to our planet, and therefore assign it a higher probability. In other words, the so-called "information" (that we exist) only helps us determine that the existence of intelligent aliens is possible (i.e. that the probability is greater than 0% and less than 100%). In what way do you consider that "relevant information?"

If you disagree with that, kindly tell me which statement of the following you disagree with:

• There is evidence for the existence of life; or
• There is no evidence for the existence of god.

• 
  
  I don't disagree with either (although some might disagree with the second). Of course, I wasn't comparing the existence of life with the existence of a god. I was comparing the existence of intelligent alien life with the existence of a god, a difference which would change the first statement dramatically.
  
  What criteria are you using to determine that one can have either opinion about the existence of aliens (of which there is no conclusive evidence for either position), but cannot have either opinion about the existence of a god (of which there is no conclusive evidence for either position)?
  
  

  I don't need to modify my definition - your 'problems' with my definition are only problems in your own mind. Skepticism does not deal with certainty - if you want the warm fuzzy feeling of certain knowledge, join a doomsday cult like Heaven's Gate or the Catholic Church, and leave those of us who value accuracy over certainty alone.

  
  Again, I'm not sure what makes you think that I want "the warm fuzzy feeling of certain knowledge" since I'm the one claiming that we lack certain knowledge about whether a given proposition can necessarily be objectively determined to be skeptical or not.
  
  I'm fine with the definition you posted, as long as you realize that it either cannot be used to make such a determination in cases where there is no conclusive evidence, or else either allows certain beliefs that you probably believe to be unskeptical or disallows certain beliefs that you probably believe to be skeptical.
  
  -Bri

 

[Belz...]

Because I made a decision on my belief just like you. I am not sceptical of that belief just like you.

What you are doing is trying to mount a huge tu quoque. That won't work. My lack of belief in god is NOT a belief. The lack of evidence indicates that I shouldn't be of the opinion that such a god exists.

And if you're still confused about the "tu quoque", you seem to be trying to make your belief more believable by making my "beliefs" just as irrational.

 

[Belz...]

They would, if they believed that what they believe in exists. But they don't.

You're STILL saying that people who hold, say, a belief in god, don't necessarily think that this god exists ???

Using skepticism, which political party in the US has been the most successful?

I have no idea, because I don't really care about American politics. Or politics in general, in fact.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Thanks!
Yes, you can make any conclusions you want. The thing is, all conclusions are not as valid. You have been talking so far as if they were:

I agree. Obviously some conclusions will be true or more true than others.

But really - for a question about God all I have to go off is what I have, same as you.

 

[Lonewulf]

You're STILL saying that people who hold, say, a belief in god, don't necessarily think that this god exists ???

Well, sure, why not?

"I believe in God, but not that He exists."

I hear it all the time. In fact, that's what all the preachers say.

"God doesn't exist... but we believe in Him!"

Yeap, yessiree, totally based on reality.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, of course I do. I have acknowledged as much several times, it's just that when I then disagree with you, you refuse to leave it at that and assert that your take on scepticism is the only possible one.

I agree with Belz on the other hand that belief = belief in existence = claim of existence. Particularly when you remember that what we are actually talking about is whether belief in god itself is sceptical, not whether this is articulated to anyone else. It's not about what "we" can do to test for their god, it's whether it's sceptical for them to believe it in the first place.

Belief in Bergson's philosophy = Belief in existence...of what?

The reason I took your claim to not be saying it is sceptical as a sign of agreement, is that within the believer's minds, they are not being sceptical when they conceive of and then maintain, this belief in god.

But as you rightly point out, you have also been saying that as well as it not being sceptical, it's also not unsceptical, because you have decided that anything that we outside their mind cannot test, is beyond the aegis of scepticism.

I, we - understand what you're saying, but disagree with you that it follows (re your definition of belief), or that it's necessarily true (provisional conclusion using available evidence being good enough for most sceptics).

If you say it is within the scope of skepticism, what are you going to test?

Or do you think you can reason your way to a skeptically based conclusion, without evidence?

You're STILL saying that people who hold, say, a belief in god, don't necessarily think that this god exists ???

I am going with what they claim.

What about the Bergsonian example?

I have no idea, because I don't really care about American politics. Or politics in general, in fact.

Come, now. If you can say we can look at the various governments, you can also say which political party is best at ruling.

If you are not an American, what about your own country? Surely, you must have some idea of how the different governments have fared?

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Me saying that evidence may never be presented is not logically nonsensical because I understand that it may be true.

Agreed on that point. I was referring to the omnipotent/omniscient concept of god which does fall under the category of logically nonsensical.

It does not mean I believe their may not be any evidence. As a Christian I obviously believe that I have enough evidence to make a decision for myself.

Many posters here have access to the same "evidence." Many non religious people seem to have a very good understanding of religion from a historical and academic viewpoint.
In some cases, that very knowledge has allowed people to let go of their earlier literal interpretation of religious beliefs and can now appreciate them metaphorically and see them as a "natural" part of hominid development.

But I'm realistic to know that you and others may neve feel they don't have any or will never have enough evidence - and you might rightly feel this way because it could be true.

I invite you to examine the "evidence" from a higher perspective, it's conceivable you may modify your current belief system.

But why should I not make a decision just because you don't have the same evidence I have or accept the same evidence I have or don't want to believe for the same reasons I do and on and on?

As stated earlier, we all have the same evidence available. How we interpret that information is the defining factor.

I'm not arguing you should or should not believe anything.

Acknowledged.
And we are just suggesting you dig a bit deeper in your skeptical thought processes. It's possible you will see that religion is not a special, untouchable area forbidden to skepticism. But of course, the decision is yours to do what ever you want.

 

[-Fran-]

I agree. Obviously some conclusions will be true or more true than others.

But really - for a question about God all I have to go off is what I have, same as you.

Not quite. I have all of science pointing to the likelihood of a deity being virtually 0. You haven't really got anything that points to the likelihood of its existence. I'm with Belz on this one. Your belief in a deity, is not the same as our lack of belief in a deity when it comes to likelihood.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

What you are doing is trying to mount a huge tu quoque. That won't work. My lack of belief in god is NOT a belief. The lack of evidence indicates that I shouldn't be of the opinion that such a god exists.

Yes it is, it's just not a religious belief. I posted a link to the definition of belief.

And if you're still confused about the "tu quoque", you seem to be trying to make your belief more believable by making my "beliefs" just as irrational.

I looked up what a "tu quoque" is and I don't understand why what I said was one. I'm not saying it is not. If you can't explain to me why then maybe someone else out there can. Or please correct Belz that it is not. Either way, I simply want to know so I don't make a "tu quoque" again since it is apparently wrong.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Agreed on that point. I was referring to the omnipotent/omniscient concept of god which does fall under the category of logically nonsensical.

OK - I understand what you were saying. Thanks for clarifying.

Many posters here have access to the same "evidence." Many non religious people seem to have a very good understanding of religion from a historical and academic viewpoint.
In some cases, that very knowledge has allowed people to let go of their earlier literal interpretation of religious beliefs and can now appreciate them metaphorically and see them as a "natural" part of hominid development.

Agree.d

I invite you to examine the "evidence" from a higher perspective, it's conceivable you may modify your current belief system.

I do. I assume you do to. I don't think is at dispute, is it? I don't think because you've drawn a different conclusion doesn't mean you haven't looked at any evidence or even the same evidence.

And we are just suggesting you dig a bit deeper in your skeptical thought processes. It's possible you will see that religion is not a special, untouchable area forbidden to skepticism. But of course, the decision is yours to do what ever you want.

I don't think religion should be forbidden to skepticism.

I think we agree an awful lot HghrSymmetry.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Not quite. I have all of science pointing to the likelihood of a deity being virtually 0. You haven't really got anything that points to the likelihood of its existence. I'm with Belz on this one. Your belief in a deity, is not the same as our lack of belief in a deity when it comes to likelihood.

I don't know where science points to a god not being there? I'm not even talking about a specific god but any? I don't think science can do this.

 

[Steven Howard]

Deists.

Which "Deists," exactly? What are their names? How do you know that they don't believe that what they believe in exists?

Keep up, please.

 

[Steven Howard]

I am going with what they claim.

Please post a link or citation to one or more of these claims.

 

[-Fran-]

I don't know where science points to a god not being there? I'm not even talking about a specific god but any? I don't think science can do this.

For a sufficiently large amount of the claims that are made about what a god supposedly can do, and does, science can show that there is a natural explanation instead, and a god is therefore not necessary as an explanation for anything. Coincidences, and your own brain's perception of things, and your misinterpretations of things, biased by a belief in the supernatural, is, for example, a more valid explanation to why your "prayers are answered" than that a god intervenes in this world and magically alters and controls things to go your way, because you wish something. Occams razor and all that... You have a right to think that the latter is what is happening, but you can not expect us to accept that that is as valid an explanation. You said that we won't accept your evidence. But we do accept evidence, problem is, this is not evidence.

To paraphrase articulett, what more of these undetectable things do you believe in? Do you then believe in them all? If not, then why do you believe in some/one and not all of them? What makes any of them more believable than any other?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

For a sufficiently large amount of the claims that are made about what a god supposedly can do, and does, science can show that there is a natural explanation instead, and a god is therefore not necessary as an explanation for anything. Coincidences, and your own brain's perception of things, and your misinterpretations of things, biased by a belief in the supernatural, is, for example, a more valid explanation to why your "prayers are answered" than that a god intervenes in this world and magically alters and controls things to go your way, because you wish something. Occams razor and all that... You have a right to think that the latter is what is happening, but you can not expect us to accept that that is as valid an explanation. You said that we won't accept your evidence. But we do accept evidence, problem is, this is not evidence.

Hi Fran -
You are summarizing everything I already said. I don't have any disagreement here. What's the issue?

To paraphrase articulett, what more of these undetectable things do you believe in? Do you then believe in them all? If not, then why do you believe in some/one and not all of them? What makes any of them more believable than any other?

I use the exact same process for my religious beliefs as I do with other beliefs. Take evolution for instance: If someone believes in evolution do they need to believe every theory of evolution ever presented? Or do you start whittling away the different theories that people have and come to some sort of conclusion that best matches the information you have?

It's the same with God. Just because I believe in God and the supernatural why do I have to believe in every supernatural claim? Once I believe in God then I can leave it at that or move on and try to whittle away all the different ideas about him and come to sort of conclusion. Or not. Or maybe I'll spend my whole life never coming to a conclusion about it.

Are you wanting to know what I believe or the thought process behind deciding what I believe? Because if it's the thought process you want to know - then the answer is The Same Way As You.

So what are we exactly talking about here? Please tell me where you want this discussion to head?