Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Bri]

Yes... most of us do... if you mean that in the same way of you not having a positive belief that there are no fairies.

Yup, I believe that's what I said. Belz was the one who denied it (at first), but it seems to have been a misunderstanding of what the word "belief" means.

-Bri

 

[CFLarsen]

You and your inane straw men, and tangential loaded questions.

What Andrea Yates did is perfectly rational if Christian Doctrine is true. If the point of life is to get to heaven and if all children automatically go to heaven, then she ensured that the people she loved most would live happily ever after and the cost of her own eternal damnation. But that wasn't a huge cost for her--she already thought she was going to hell because she didn't discipline her kids well enough and she thought that made them vulnerable to Satan. Yes, she was mentally ill... but she believed that god wouldn't give her more problems then she could handle-- so she went and had another baby though being told not to.

If her children are living happily ever after, then she was the one who ensured that at her own expense-- she was the one who loved those kids more than anyone else... home schooling them and trying to be a super mom while mental illness incapacitated her. Her life is hell because she really truly believed she sent them to the happy place in the sky and made sure they'd never ever end up in hell. I cannot believe how people learn to blind themselves to the horrible things done in the name of faith. And you exemplify this Claus. Apologist.

OK, now we are entering the realm of the...uncanny.

According to you,

Christians are not true Christians, unless they kill their children.

If mentally ill religious people kill their children, it's not because they are mentally ill, but because they are religious.

And if people point out that Andrea Yates did not kill her children because she was religious, but because she was insane, they are apologists for religious child killers.

Now, that I would like you to argue on the TAM podium!!

 

[Belz...]

This leads nowhere.

No kidding.

 

[Big Les]

Just came across this excellent Bertrand Russell quote posted by Jekyll on another thread, and want to repost it here because it goes further than Sagan's version and because it sums up exactly my thoughts on the matter;

it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.

And "because it comforts me" might be a reason to believe, but it is no ground for supposing it true. This only applies if you think that "believe" means to believe that the subject of the proposition exists, rather than... whatever the hell Claus means when he says "believe in X".

 

[amb]

Excuse my butting in. But most sceptics are also at best. Agnostic. Many are outright atheists. I for one rely on the trial and error of scientific proof for my beliefs. If a host of reputable scientists ever come up with proof of any god, I would still dis-believe until I had concrete proof of such a discovery. So-called scientists, such as Behe, who authored the book titled ''Darwin's Black Box'', probably added to the distress of genuine people searching for answers to existence by all the scientific sounding jargon he uses in his pseudoscience book. Especially his assertion of the complexity of a cell not being possible without a creator to create it. I can imagine semi illiterate people's reaction to reading something like that. G/night to all. Angelo

 

[Darat]

To all participants - please remember your Membership Agreement and in particular remember that whilst attacking the argument is OK attacking the person isn't.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Bri]

Just came across this excellent Bertrand Russell quote posted by Jekyll on another thread, and want to repost it here because it goes further than Sagan's version and because it sums up exactly my thoughts on the matter;

And "because it comforts me" might be a reason to believe, but it is no ground for supposing it true. This only applies if you think that "believe" means to believe that the subject of the proposition exists, rather than... whatever the hell Claus means when he says "believe in X".

Just thought I'd point out that the quote you cited doesn't advocate positive belief against a proposition either.

-Bri

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

So c'mon, give us a shot. Tell me, who exactly has been oppressing you so, and telling you that you can't be a skeptic?
.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3237329#post3237329

 

[Big Les]

Just thought I'd point out that the quote you cited doesn't advocate positive belief against a proposition either.

-Bri

Indeed. Which is why on several occasions in this thread I have said something along the lines if "if it's not sceptical to disbelieve, it sure as hell isn't to believe". If it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true, then non-belief must be the desirable position. The more I think about it, the more I have a feeling people arguing against have been arguing against my pragmatic extension of this toward non-belief i.e. strong atheism.

I admit that I do tend to equate non-belief with disbelief for these pragmatic reasons, mainly because the very notion of a god originates with earthly misinterpretations. There is no more weight behind the proposition than any other one cares to dream up. That tilts me from non-belief toward disbelief. If something exerts no measurable influence on reality, it may as well not exist. I take that as strong evidence that it doesn't. Perhaps I go too far, but then again if people really do only believe a god insofar as a child believes in their imaginary friend, then perhaps not. It seems that any argument against something that is indistinguishable from nothingness is tilting at windmills.

 

[Mobyseven]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3237329#post3237329

Well, I for one entirely disagree with that poster, for reasons I have posted on this thread. Basic summary: While it is certainly not skeptical to believe in god, having one blind spot does not stop a person from being a skeptic so long as they have a good understanding of skepticism and apply it consistently to other parts of their life.

ETA: I would say that the poster in that thread is in the minority on this topic, by the way.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein were brilliant. Unfortunately for you, they were quite religious as well, weren't they? ...

H

With a couple of those, one can't be sure, their contemporaries were being persecuted for speaking out. With all of them except Einstein, you can't hold against them what we know now that they didn't know then. And with all of them, you also don't know if they ever addressed their childhood indoctrinations scientifically. Same is true today, a lot of scientists indoctrinated as kids have simply not put their beliefs up to the light for an examination.

So I don't get your point. Are you saying because all scientists have not let go of god, god beliefs are scientific? Or god beliefs are legit? Or god beliefs are compatible with skepticism?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
You are way out of line here.

Andrea Yates killed her children because she was insane. Her medical record lists a nervous breakdown, several suicide attempts and psychiatric hospitalizations.

It wasn't religion that caused her to kill her five children.

That you blame such a tragedy on her religion is not only wrong, it is downright cruel.

This example is not the same as people being talking into killing and suicide by someone else preying on their religious indoctrination.

 

[-Fran-]

Well, I for one entirely disagree with that poster, for reasons I have posted on this thread. Basic summary: While it is certainly not skeptical to believe in god, having one blind spot does not stop a person from being a skeptic so long as they have a good understanding of skepticism and apply it consistently to other parts of their life.

ETA: I would say that the poster in that thread is in the minority on this topic, by the way.

I agree. And with a few exceptions, this whole thread have discussed hypothetical (sp?) situations anyway. It has not been about what people can and can not do in their actual lives. If I point out to someone that I think that something they argue is not skeptical in nature, that is not the same thing as me telling them what they can or can't do, what they can or can't call themselves and so on. How could I control that even if I wanted to? And I don't want to, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. But if things are being discussed I will say what I think, if I feel like saying anything at all, and that will mean I will occasionally say to someone that what you said now doesn't seem as it was based in skeptical thinking to me. Now if I am right or not, is another thing again

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....It's a perfectly legitimate argument - that her religious beliefs may have facilitated the tragedy just as many would argue that the availability of guns facilitates other tragedies such as school shootings. An argument you yourself agree with. There are different stimuli for such things that can be addressed - some physical, some psycho-social. Remove guns from the equation; reduce the chance of school shootings. Remove social isolation and bullying from the equation, likewise reduce the chance of them happening. The same argument applies equally here - availability of a weapon was one factor, mental problems another. Arguably, her religious belief was another. Remove any one of these and the killing might not have occurred. I believe that is what articulett is saying - not that religion in and of itself is solely to blame.

You are also leaving out the third party involved. Perhaps Arti just meant the religious beliefs, but I don't see the analogy is appropriate. Arti mentioned 9/11 and Jonestown. Both of those events involved someone using the other person's beliefs to manipulate them. It wasn't just voices in one's head with a religious theme as a psychotic might experience. Jim Jones was psychotic, but his followers were indoctrinated. And Bin Laden had a political motive for manipulating the hijackers, none of them were psychotic.

 

[articulett]

What Andrea Yates did was logical if she truly believed the goal of life was to make sure those she loved the most lived happily ever after. She believed she was already going to hell because she was not a good mother because her children (toddler boys) were "undisciplined". She figured if she killed them before they reached an age where they were certified "reasonable" (hell worthy), she could ensure their heavenly bliss. Doesn't every believer believe that kids automatically go to heaven? What mother could bear the thought of her child being tortured forever?

Yes, she was psychotic... but that was religion induced too... She had a 5th child even after being told not to because of severe post partum psychosis after the 4th-- she figured "god doesn't give you more than you can handle". She was trying to be super mom-- homeschooling kids and following this really strict religious creed. I'd say that anyone who believes that Andrea Yates kids are in heaven would have to admit that she did as she intended--she ensured their "happily ever after" at her own expense. She didn't kill her kids because she hated them. She killed her kids because she really believed that was the way to ensure their eternal bliss. What did she do except start their eternity early and ensure that it would be in paradise-- according to the belief of many Christians. But they were the first to condemn her.

I always ask every Christian if they think her kids are in heaven. They say "yes"... so what Andrea Yates did from that perspective is that she caused them a few moments of suffering to ensure they'd have a happy ETERNITY. Kind of like vaccinations... but we're talking ETERNITY. What she did made sense if you really believe Christian doctrine. She really believed it. I am shocked that people give faith a free pass on this one. What would you give up to ensure that the people you loved most in the world got to live happily ever after? What if you thought you were going to hell anyhow?

I don't know how a woman can have a child knowing that she could be creating a life that can suffer forever. I think religion places a weird burden on mothers this way. And Andrea Yates really believed it-- a disaster for a woman for whom God DID give more than she could handle. Moreover, a doctor took her off her antipsychotic medications 2 days before she killed her kids. She was hearing voices... she was certain the devil was telling her she was going to hell. Her goal was to spare her kids. Anyone overlooking that is making excuses for religion or turning a blind eye to religions influence on her actions.

I'm amazed at how religion never gets the blame for the grief it causes while the invisible guy in the sky gets credit for the stuff mortals do.

And despite Claus' strawman, I'm not saying true Christians kill their kids... I'm saying that per the beliefs they spout, what Andrea Yates did was logical. I'm not a Christian. Christians don't agree on who is and isn't a Christian. And Christians argue that any Christian doing bad things isn't a "real" Christian. Andrea Yates was as real a Christian as they get. She really believed that stuff. If you believe her kids are living happily ever after, then you understand why Andrea Yates did what she did. If you believe in hell--you understand even more. The whole point of Christian dogma is to get to heaven isn't it? Life is a test... blah, blah, blah. Once Andrea Yates believed she was going to hell... what was the best way for her to make sure that such a fate didn't happen to her kids because of her poor parenting?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

With what? There's no claim in "credo consolans". There's nothing to test. There's not even evidence against it.

Copied from a copy, (I have the book, this was just easier than typing it out.)

...except from the book Why DO People Believe Weird Things? (pp. 275-278):

1. Credo consolans: I believe because it consols me.
2. Simplicity: Pseudoscientific beliefs are simpler and easier to understand than scientific ones.
3. Immediacy: Pseudoscience offers immediate gratification and hope.
4. Morality and Meaning: Science does not offer moral messages and answers to our questions about the meaning of our existence. Superstitions give us answers to these ultimate questions.
5. Hope Springs Eternal: ALL humans, skeptics and scientists included, look to the future for a better life and world, and the siren song of pseudoscience and superstition is hard to resist.

But here are some comments from a professor who had this to say about Shermer's comments, Shermer’s “25 Fallacies” & My Views of Shermer’s Explanation for Why We Believe Weird Things; Cloyd Hyten, Ph.D.; Dept of Behavior Analysis (The link is to the HTML, go from there to the PPT to read what is on the slides.)

But these seem redundant, unorganized & missing some critical reasons!

And he goes on to discuss the thought processes and person's history which underlies the over simplistic explanation of Credo Consolans. Just as I have been trying to say, it isn't simply that the belief is comforting, one had to grow the belief in the first place and in the case of god beliefs, come to find that comfort in the first place. That comfort is not just magically there, poof, no invalid evidence needed a forehand.

Social Influences
Imitation & Instruction
Who/what we model or are taught
Approval/disapproval for acts/beliefs

Compatibility with Existing Beliefs
Belief networks & RFT
(Relational Frame Theory- a new & controversial behavioral theory of cognition)

Hayes, Barnes-Holmes & Roche, 2001
Inspired by Human Research (rule-governed behavior & stimulus equivalence research in 1980s) & Adult Clinical Applications

Language & Cognition:
Based on generalized form of relational responding, under contextual control

Learned Learning Process: Necessary for development of sophisticated language & cognitive abilities

Accounts for “generative” nature of language/cognition (1 input, many interconnected outputs)

and so on and so on.

 

[articulett]

Credo Consolans IS a reason for belief... it's just not a logical reason... it doesn't make it more likely to be true. It's not really in line with skepticism to believe stuff because it makes you feel good to believe it.

I think everyone is entitled to call themselves a skeptic and everyone is entitled to decide who is and isn't a skeptic... the same goes for Christians. None of us are keepers of the "definition". But I don't buy Claus' argument that belief itself is not subject to skepticism. Like most people here, I think skeptics that believe in gods or some nebulous concept of god do so by shielding that god from skepticism.

That's fine--but I think they are utterly wrong if they think not believing is on par with believing in "invisible undetectable creators", and all the semantic games are about pretending that these are equally logical positions. They are not. God belief is as skeptical as demon belief. Lack of god belief is as logical as lack of demon belief. They are similarly nebulous concepts... but that doesn't make either of them real.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Credo Consolans IS a reason for belief... ....

Reason yes, but not the basis of the belief which was what my whole argument with Claus was about. It's the reason to keep believing, but it doesn't fully account for how one arrived at the belief in the first place. Remember, the whole argument was Claus claiming one's god belief just poofed into existence without evidence and if the skeptic then only believed in god for a reason such as comfort, then that belief didn't contradict their skeptical philosophy. I said, the belief didn't just poof into existence and the person had to have come to have the god belief first via invalid evidence which they then simply ignore (or deny) in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance.

What the person is is not in question. But giving god beliefs a pass by this twisted logic is not consistent with skepticism. And I don't claim to be the keeper of the definition of skepticism, but once defined, I do then claim to be qualified to place god beliefs in with other woo. I say all god beliefs meet all the criteria of woo. No one has convinced me there is a special case for some god beliefs. Those same people as you point out, don't apply that special case to other god beliefs.

Define skepticism that allows god beliefs. You can't. Define god beliefs which are excepted from skepticism. You can, but I don't buy it.

 

[CFLarsen]

This example is not the same as people being talking into killing and suicide by someone else preying on their religious indoctrination.

That's exactly what articulett is claiming.

You are also leaving out the third party involved. Perhaps Arti just meant the religious beliefs, but I don't see the analogy is appropriate. Arti mentioned 9/11 and Jonestown. Both of those events involved someone using the other person's beliefs to manipulate them. It wasn't just voices in one's head with a religious theme as a psychotic might experience. Jim Jones was psychotic, but his followers were indoctrinated.

There is evidence that some of his followers were killed, and didn't willingly drink the cyanide.

And Bin Laden had a political motive for manipulating the hijackers, none of them were psychotic.

How do you know they weren't psychotic?

Are you saying that Bin Laded didn't orchestrate the 9-11 attacks for religious reasons?

What Andrea Yates did was logical if she truly believed the goal of life was to make sure those she loved the most lived happily ever after. She believed she was already going to hell because she was not a good mother because her children (toddler boys) were "undisciplined". She figured if she killed them before they reached an age where they were certified "reasonable" (hell worthy), she could ensure their heavenly bliss. Doesn't every believer believe that kids automatically go to heaven? What mother could bear the thought of her child being tortured forever?

Yes, she was psychotic... but that was religion induced too...

How do you know that?

She had a 5th child even after being told not to because of severe post partum psychosis after the 4th-- she figured "god doesn't give you more than you can handle". She was trying to be super mom-- homeschooling kids and following this really strict religious creed. I'd say that anyone who believes that Andrea Yates kids are in heaven would have to admit that she did as she intended--she ensured their "happily ever after" at her own expense. She didn't kill her kids because she hated them. She killed her kids because she really believed that was the way to ensure their eternal bliss. What did she do except start their eternity early and ensure that it would be in paradise-- according to the belief of many Christians. But they were the first to condemn her.

Now you are flat-out contradicting yourself. First, you say that Yates just followed what her Christian faith told her. Then, you blame Christians for speaking out against what she did.

I always ask every Christian if they think her kids are in heaven. They say "yes"... so what Andrea Yates did from that perspective is that she caused them a few moments of suffering to ensure they'd have a happy ETERNITY. Kind of like vaccinations... but we're talking ETERNITY. What she did made sense if you really believe Christian doctrine. She really believed it. I am shocked that people give faith a free pass on this one. What would you give up to ensure that the people you loved most in the world got to live happily ever after? What if you thought you were going to hell anyhow?

If you don't think that those Christians who spoke out against her after her deed are real Christians, why are you criticizing them for doing so?

I don't know how a woman can have a child knowing that she could be creating a life that can suffer forever. I think religion places a weird burden on mothers this way. And Andrea Yates really believed it-- a disaster for a woman for whom God DID give more than she could handle. Moreover, a doctor took her off her antipsychotic medications 2 days before she killed her kids. She was hearing voices... she was certain the devil was telling her she was going to hell. Her goal was to spare her kids. Anyone overlooking that is making excuses for religion or turning a blind eye to religions influence on her actions.

I'm amazed at how religion never gets the blame for the grief it causes while the invisible guy in the sky gets credit for the stuff mortals do.

If you blame Yates' religion and not her psychosis, then you are in fact saying that the voices in her head were real.

Your argument presumes the existence of God!

And despite Claus' strawman, I'm not saying true Christians kill their kids... I'm saying that per the beliefs they spout, what Andrea Yates did was logical. I'm not a Christian. Christians don't agree on who is and isn't a Christian. And Christians argue that any Christian doing bad things isn't a "real" Christian. Andrea Yates was as real a Christian as they get. She really believed that stuff. If you believe her kids are living happily ever after, then you understand why Andrea Yates did what she did. If you believe in hell--you understand even more. The whole point of Christian dogma is to get to heaven isn't it? Life is a test... blah, blah, blah. Once Andrea Yates believed she was going to hell... what was the best way for her to make sure that such a fate didn't happen to her kids because of her poor parenting?

So, you are saying that true Christians kill their kids.

Copied from a copy, (I have the book, this was just easier than typing it out.)But here are some comments from a professor who had this to say about Shermer's comments, Shermer’s “25 Fallacies” & My Views of Shermer’s Explanation for Why We Believe Weird Things; Cloyd Hyten, Ph.D.; Dept of Behavior Analysis (The link is to the HTML, go from there to the PPT to read what is on the slides.)And he goes on to discuss the thought processes and person's history which underlies the over simplistic explanation of Credo Consolans. Just as I have been trying to say, it isn't simply that the belief is comforting, one had to grow the belief in the first place and in the case of god beliefs, come to find that comfort in the first place. That comfort is not just magically there, poof, no invalid evidence needed a forehand.and so on and so on.

What evidence has Martin Gardner claimed was the reason for his Credo Consolans?

Credo Consolans IS a reason for belief... it's just not a logical reason... it doesn't make it more likely to be true. It's not really in line with skepticism to believe stuff because it makes you feel good to believe it.

I think everyone is entitled to call themselves a skeptic and everyone is entitled to decide who is and isn't a skeptic... the same goes for Christians. None of us are keepers of the "definition". But I don't buy Claus' argument that belief itself is not subject to skepticism.

If you have me on ignore, then ignore what I say.

Like most people here, I think skeptics that believe in gods or some nebulous concept of god do so by shielding that god from skepticism.

They are not shielding their god from skepticism. They are not out to cheat.

That's fine--but I think they are utterly wrong if they think not believing is on par with believing in "invisible undetectable creators", and all the semantic games are about pretending that these are equally logical positions. They are not. God belief is as skeptical as demon belief. Lack of god belief is as logical as lack of demon belief. They are similarly nebulous concepts... but that doesn't make either of them real.

They aren't claiming they are real. That's you imposing your perception of "god" on them.

Reason yes, but not the basis of the belief which was what my whole argument with Claus was about. It's the reason to keep believing, but it doesn't fully account for how one arrived at the belief in the first place. Remember, the whole argument was Claus claiming one's god belief just poofed into existence without evidence and if the skeptic then only believed in god for a reason such as comfort, then that belief didn't contradict their skeptical philosophy. I said, the belief didn't just poof into existence and the person had to have come to have the god belief first via invalid evidence which they then simply ignore (or deny) in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance.

I'll ask you the same: What evidence has Martin Gardner claimed was the reason for his Credo Consolans?

What the person is is not in question. But giving god beliefs a pass by this twisted logic is not consistent with skepticism. And I don't claim to be the keeper of the definition of skepticism, but once defined, I do then claim to be qualified to place god beliefs in with other woo. I say all god beliefs meet all the criteria of woo. No one has convinced me there is a special case for some god beliefs. Those same people as you point out, don't apply that special case to other god beliefs.

Define skepticism that allows god beliefs. You can't. Define god beliefs which are excepted from skepticism. You can, but I don't buy it.

Just how do you define skepticism?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't have you on ignore, but I'm going to ignore that post. I've stated my position. You are just repeating yours. There's nothing new in your post.