Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Belz...]

(Why is asking questions with obvious answers as some sort of debate tactic so popular here?)

Maybe because nobody has a clue why the hell you're posting here.

Why do YOU assume that I had, or have, any understanding of what you're saying ?

It means, Belz, that Clause probably would have a difficult time with someone that can transport galaxies and vaporize planets and enjoys choir music and watching people get married.

Troll.

 

[Egg]

But his major breakthrough did not come about thanks to his theism, but rather in spite of. I think that you will agree with me on that.

That's probably not an unfair comment.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Would personal experience be a valid reason for a skeptic to be a theist? A revelation, a vision, a voice, a personal relationship with Morgan Freeman, whatever? It would not be a good reason for someone ELSE to believe, but if I got knocked out the saddle on the way to Damascus I might think it was pretty convincing. I might also think incipient schizophrenia and get myself evaluated, but assuming I stayed on plumb not counting the religous experience, couldn't my belief be justified? Could the required extraordinary evidence be extraordinary enough for ME even if it isn't for you? I have all kinds of private (although admittedly non-theistic) experiences that I would have trouble proving if pressed. Internal states, events without other witnesses, things that were meaningful enough for me to remember that others seem to have forgotten.

I think I wouldn't have trouble with someone believing in God based on personal interactions with Him being a skeptic as long as they demonstrated their skepticism in other matters. I would not find their experience convincing, but I certainly can't claim certainty that I wouldn't find it convincing if it happened to me.

 

[Egg]

Would personal experience be a valid reason for a skeptic to be a theist? A revelation, a vision, a voice, a personal relationship with Morgan Freeman, whatever?...

I would have thought that might be the case, and that's been pretty much my argument in this thread, but others don't seem to agree. As far as I see it, this was pretty much the point behind Sagan's story: Contact.

 

[SirPhilip]

Why do YOU assume that I had, or have, any understanding of what you're saying ?

I have a tendency to see the best in people.

 

[SirPhilip]

Troll.

When responses are flippant, antagonistic and stupid, it's good measure to do likewise more gladly.

 

[amb]

I was going to say, "I thought you fell on the gun rights side of the debate", until I just realized what thread I'm in.

WTH?


I have yet to see the name of a single Theologian that has significantly, clearly contributed to society. Just write some pretty words, or end up causing a split in society.

Scientists have done stuff like discover penicillin, and make claims that are actually shown to be true.


Not really. He made it very clear he didn't have a personal god, and also made it clear that he was a pantheist; he celebrated nature as "god", without accepting anything intelligent or supernatural about it. Sounds pretty atheistic to me, really.


Did he stay one for all of his life? Or did there come a point where he had to clear up his Cognitive Dissonance?

Bravo. You saved me answering. I was a little too enthusiastic about the figure of 99%. But that's not denying the fact that most rational thinking and the greatest contributors to our modern life although earlier may have been theist, most died atheists including Einstein and Darwin who intended to study theology in his early years. Einstein stated ''I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.''
Sounds like atheisim to me too. Then you have notable theologions like Calvin who states ''if science does not prove the bible, then science must be wrong''. [Or words to that effect]
Creationists who deny the findings of astronomy, biology, astrobiology, archaeology and paleontologist are like King Tut [or was that Canute] trying to hold back the tides.

 

[NeilC]

Hi Angelo.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by claiming the greatest minds are mostly non-theist. An argument from authority or that correlation proves causation?

Where is the 99% figure coming from? What criteria are you using to validate your list?

Anyone can make a list of people who they consider to be greatest minds of the millennium to come up with their own figure. What makes you think that if your list had 99 atheists/agnostics on it, that it is some kind of objective list? What's to say you aren't just choosing atheists for the list because you happen to agree with the things they said? Surely, someone could put forward a list of theologians and claim them to be the great minds of the millennium and it would be no more or less valid than your list?

That's not to say that my own list wouldn't include a good number of the people you mention. Einstein's beliefs are pretty hard to pin down and Darwin was still a theist when he wrote Origin and you make no mention of Newton, Planck, Mendel, Pascal, Babbage, Faraday, Boyle, Galileo or Copernicus, or are they the sort of people you are referring to as "pseudo-scientists"?

Btw I don't think we have any evidence that fictional pirates were mapping the human genome. I think they usually stuck to treasure maps.

Any religiosity/intelligence study I've seen shows atheists to be more intelligent than theists on average: http://danish.newsvine.com/_news/20...-atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-believers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#_note-1

 

[amb]

Hi Angelo.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by claiming the greatest minds are mostly non-theist. An argument from authority or that correlation proves causation?

Where is the 99% figure coming from? What criteria are you using to validate your list?

Anyone can make a list of people who they consider to be greatest minds of the millennium to come up with their own figure. What makes you think that if your list had 99 atheists/agnostics on it, that it is some kind of objective list? What's to say you aren't just choosing atheists for the list because you happen to agree with the things they said? Surely, someone could put forward a list of theologians and claim them to be the great minds of the millennium and it would be no more or less valid than your list?

That's not to say that my own list wouldn't include a good number of the people you mention. Einstein's beliefs are pretty hard to pin down and Darwin was still a theist when he wrote Origin and you make no mention of Newton, Planck, Mendel, Pascal, Babbage, Faraday, Boyle, Galileo or Copernicus, or are they the sort of people you are referring to as "pseudo-scientists"?

Btw I don't think we have any evidence that fictional pirates were mapping the human genome. I think they usually stuck to treasure maps.

All the distinguished scientist you mention WERE at one time theist. The question then you have to ask is; did they remain so all their lives. I think if you look a little closer you may find very few remained theists. Pascal took an each way bet withs his Wager, Newton was a very religious man, but I have no idea if he remained one all his life. Copernicus was one of the first to un-center the Earth, thereby questioning the bible, Galileo continued Copernicus work and was disbarred from the church been placed under house arrest by it and was lucky to keep his head attached to his neck.

 

[Lonewulf]

Would personal experience be a valid reason for a skeptic to be a theist? A revelation, a vision, a voice, a personal relationship with Morgan Freeman, whatever? It would not be a good reason for someone ELSE to believe, but if I got knocked out the saddle on the way to Damascus I might think it was pretty convincing. I might also think incipient schizophrenia and get myself evaluated, but assuming I stayed on plumb not counting the religous experience, couldn't my belief be justified? Could the required extraordinary evidence be extraordinary enough for ME even if it isn't for you? I have all kinds of private (although admittedly non-theistic) experiences that I would have trouble proving if pressed. Internal states, events without other witnesses, things that were meaningful enough for me to remember that others seem to have forgotten.

I think I wouldn't have trouble with someone believing in God based on personal interactions with Him being a skeptic as long as they demonstrated their skepticism in other matters. I would not find their experience convincing, but I certainly can't claim certainty that I wouldn't find it convincing if it happened to me.

But here's the thing.

Name me one vision, one quest, one whatever that someone could have, that would prove:

A) Existence of Hell.
B) Existence of God.
C) Existence of the Soul.
D) Existence of heaven, or ANY kind of afterlife.
E) Existence of demons or angels.

Let's say that you see an angel. Does that mean that angels exist? Maybe it does. Maybe you can believe in angels and call yourself a skeptic. But what if it's an angel from Norse mythos, and not Christian? What if a supernatural being is just capable of looking like an angel?

In short, to believe the whole Christian thing, you'd have to find evidence for the whole Christian thing... including Christ's divinity.

It's a big task. I can't think of any single vision that would convince me that all of the above is 100% true.

 

[Lonewulf]

Bravo. You saved me answering. I was a little too enthusiastic about the figure of 99%. But that's not denying the fact that most rational thinking and the greatest contributors to our modern life although earlier may have been theist, most died atheists including Einstein and Darwin who intended to study theology in his early years. Einstein stated ''I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.''
Sounds like atheisim to me too. Then you have notable theologions like Calvin who states ''if science does not prove the bible, then science must be wrong''. [Or words to that effect]
Creationists who deny the findings of astronomy, biology, astrobiology, archaeology and paleontologist are like King Tut [or was that Canute] trying to hold back the tides.

Let's get something straight, though. I think the whole "scientists are majority atheist" thing can only really be applied today.

One hundred years ago, there was much we didn't understand. Heck, we didn't even really have Einstein's Relativity yet (I think).

Two hundred years ago? Three hundred? Four hundred? When you go that far back, belief in God becomes more and more easier to accept, because of the vast amount of things that you just don't know. But then you discover, and then prove beyond a doubt, that the planets go around the sun (Galileo)... and you also see the fallibility of the supposedly infallible church (Galileo was prevented from getting the truth out and put under house arrest by the church).

Today... there's not much use for theology. Someone studies Theology (or Philosophy), and the greatest position in society that I imagine them in is an instructor or college professor. I see someone studying science, though, and I see someone that can truly affect the world.

I would take one Hawking over a THOUSAND Augustines.

 

[Lonewulf]

I would have thought that might be the case, and that's been pretty much my argument in this thread, but others don't seem to agree. As far as I see it, this was pretty much the point behind Sagan's story: Contact.

The movie version or the book? The movie changed around a few of Sagan's points.

Either way, Sagan criticized religion in Cosmos. I suggest you watch that.

 

[amb]

Let's get something straight, though. I think the whole "scientists are majority atheist" thing can only really be applied today.

One hundred years ago, there was much we didn't understand. Heck, we didn't even really have Einstein's Relativity yet (I think).

Two hundred years ago? Three hundred? Four hundred? When you go that far back, belief in God becomes more and more easier to accept, because of the vast amount of things that you just don't know. But then you discover, and then prove beyond a doubt, that the planets go around the sun (Galileo)... and you also see the fallibility of the supposedly infallible church (Galileo was prevented from getting the truth out and put under house arrest by the church).

Today... there's not much use for theology. Someone studies Theology (or Philosophy), and the greatest position in society that I imagine them in is an instructor or college professor. I see someone studying science, though, and I see someone that can truly affect the world.

I would take one Hawking over a THOUSAND Augustines.

That's why there has been for centuries, a god of the gaps. What science could not yet explain creationist would exclaim ''God Did It''. A perfect example is the so called missing link. Creationist still insist because there seems to be a missing link between homo erectus and homo sapiens that it shows we could not possibly have evolved from the earlier species, therefore there's proof of creation, not evolution. The flimsiest misunderstanding is pounced on by creationist as proof of their precious God, not realizing that it's only a matter of time before the misunderstanding is sorted out and another gap is closed for their God to hide in. That's why they have come up with I/D. Their trying to use science for their wacky ideas, to make it more palatable for the gullible.

 

[Egg]

The movie version or the book? The movie changed around a few of Sagan's points.

Either way, Sagan criticized religion in Cosmos. I suggest you watch that.

I was referring to the movie, but I'll try to get hold of a copy of the book soon...and I'll look out for Cosmos when I get a chance.

So little time, so much to do.

 

[Lonewulf]

I was referring to the movie, but I'll try to get hold of a copy of the book soon...and I'll look out for Cosmos when I get a chance.

So little time, so much to do.

Well, don't go by the movie. The people that made the movie distorted Sagan's viewpoints, as far as I understand.

 

[amb]

I was referring to the movie, but I'll try to get hold of a copy of the book soon...and I'll look out for Cosmos when I get a chance.

So little time, so much to do.

Make an effort and read it as soon as you can, you won't regret it. After ''Demon Haunted World'', Cosmos is one of Sagan's best. Along with ''Pale Blue Dot''.

 

[amb]

Make an effort and read it as soon as you can, you won't regret it. After ''Demon Haunted World'', Cosmos is one of Sagan's best. Along with ''Pale Blue Dot''.

By the way, today is Sagan's 11th anniversary of his untimely death.

 

[Egg]

All the distinguished scientist you mention WERE at one time theist. The question then you have to ask is; did they remain so all their lives. I think if you look a little closer you may find very few remained theists. Pascal took an each way bet withs his Wager, Newton was a very religious man, but I have no idea if he remained one all his life. Copernicus was one of the first to un-center the Earth, thereby questioning the bible, Galileo continued Copernicus work and was disbarred from the church been placed under house arrest by it and was lucky to keep his head attached to his neck.

I'm still unsure of the point you're trying to make. What is the conclusion you are drawing from what you're saying? Why does is matter if they remained theist or not?

 

[Lonewulf]

If people "need" religion, as is continually spouted about, and if religion connotes some kind of arbitrary "good" thing... then how is it that the most powerful scientific minds can do without it? You'd think that people that actually had to continuously think about the nature of the universe would need it more, not less.

 

[amb]

I'm still unsure of the point you're trying to make. What is the conclusion you are drawing from what you're saying? Why does is matter if they remained theist or not?

Ignorance begats ignorance is my point. Most of above mentioned people were at one time theist. After science opened their eyes, or removed the blinkers if you like, they could see the burning bush for what it was. Just an ordinary bush.
The other point is that religion does not stand up to scrutiny by openminded scientists.