The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Piggy]

Well, quite, skepticism is about doubt at the core, something that JREF should perhaps also officially apply to religion, as it does with so many other things, agreed?

I'm not sure that it's about doubt at the core.

To me, it's about method at the core. It's about applying reason.

Yes, doubt is a necessary component of that. But I don't see it as the central pillar.

 

[remirol]

You're looking at it backwards.

When no definition of a thing can be had, it's clear you're talking about an empty concept.

But plenty of people are able to define god; it just isn't a definition that can be tested. Look at gerry, for example. He can define god. It's not even remotely close to a definition that can be tested, and it's not the most coherent one due to the limitations of the poster, but it _is_ a definition, whether we like it or not.

I understand you have some personal grudge against religion. But it's simply not critical thinking to assert that "there is no god"; you can't prove the negative. (It _is_ skepticism, though, isn't it? Hmmm.... )

If you were to say "There's no evidence for god", i'm on board. "I can't see any reasonable way that god _could_ exist" is fine with me, too. And you're not going to find me lined up at the confessional curtain "just in case"; I have to alphabetize my socks Sunday mornings, and that takes priority. Until someone shows me some indicator that there _is_ a god, i'm going to act as though it doesn't exist, just like the invisible pink unicorn in my closet.

But to implicitly tell others who have chosen to have faith in something that probably isn't there that they aren't good enough? I can't support that, sorry.

 

[six7s]

So, is JREF an atheist organization?

Well, no, if by that you mean that everyone in it is an atheist.

But there are those, myself included, who contend that skepticism, when applied honestly, fully, and consistently to the question of God, yields a "no".

So from my point of view, I reckon that it should be an atheist organization by default, in the same sense that it should be an a-Holocaust-denial organization.

My guess (yes, guess) is that the JREF takes more than a mere 'default' position on theism...

I wouldn't be surprised to be told that all of the staff members, when drafting what they publish, make an active/conscious decision to excise any/all theistic woo from their work... even (otherwise) trivial 'poetical, colloquial' stuff (like 'thank god', 'holy cow!', 'saints alive!', etc)

Anyhoo... the JREF is an atheist organisation - by default, at least - cos it sure ain't a theist organisation

 

[Piggy]

But plenty of people are able to define god; it just isn't a definition that can be tested.

Then what's it worth when it comes to claims that God "exists"?

If you're going to claim -- as you have -- that the (non-)existence of God is somehow outside the realm of rational examination and testing, then you're going to have to explain how it can be that X can be asserted to potentially exist and yet, at the same time, X cannot -- even in theory -- be examined to determine whether or not it exists and (and this is key) also still be God. (E.g., we can speculate about certain things outside our light horizon which may or may not exist, and we'll never know, but no one has ever believed God to be, say, a planet outside our light horizon).

I'm not saying that no one has ever defined God.

I'm asking you to examine, and defend if possible, your own assertion.

I understand you have some personal grudge against religion.

No, you don't.

But it's simply not critical thinking to assert that "there is no god"; you can't prove the negative. (It _is_ skepticism, though, isn't it? Hmmm.... )

With all due respect, I recommend that you ease up on the accepted wisdom.

Of course negatives can be proven. Give me access to DNA testing, and I can prove that Sarah Palin is not my mother. I can prove that there are no adult gorillas in my house.

Again, you're claiming something rather remarkable -- that God can be said to exist and yet be immune to examination of its alleged existence -- and you've yet to explain yourself.

But to implicitly tell others who have chosen to have faith in something that probably isn't there that they aren't good enough? I can't support that, sorry.

"Aren't good enough"? Now you're merely inventing claims out of thin air. That's not what this is about.

 

[Piggy]

My guess (yes, guess) is that the JREF takes more than a mere 'default' position on theism...

I wouldn't be surprised to be told that all of the staff members, when drafting what they publish, make an active/conscious decision to excise any/all theistic woo from their work... even (otherwise) trivial 'poetical, colloquial' stuff (like 'thank god', 'holy cow!', 'saints alive!', etc)

Anyhoo... the JREF is an atheist organisation - by default, at least - cos it sure ain't a theist organisation

That was me, not Thomas, btw.

Not all the staff members are, or were, atheists. There's at least one deist.

 

[six7s]

That was me, not Thomas, btw.

That's summat I didn't doubt

ETA: whoops! I now see the cock-up... I must have begun by multi-quoting you both, and then edited sloppily

Not all the staff members are, or were, atheists. There's at least one deist.

I was vaguely aware of a deist in teh house... my guess is that they have NEVER mentioned such woo in their published JREF work

 

[SezMe]

My best friend admits that she believes because it is comforting....

Which is the same reason given by Martin Gardner, the grandfather of skepticism and an inspiration for Randi, me and probably many others here.

 

[SezMe]

According to prior discussions on this forum, then it is, so I looked it up, and while yahoo answers perhaps isn't the best source, then it agrees with me. What agrees with you?

Not a what but a who: Michael Shermer. In one of his books (can't remember which) he goes into some detail about agnosticism, atheism, and the many, many variants of each. He discusses how they differ and overlap. In short, at any but the most bluntest levels, they are not the same.

The problem with using a dictionary to resolve the issue is that they are descriptive, not prescriptive. Thus, because agnostic has been widely misused, you will find that misuse enshrined in various definitions. One time, prompted by a discussion like this, I looked at the definitions of atheism in as many dictionaries as I could lay my hands on. I was surprised by the range of definitions for this one word.

 

[six7s]

Martin Gardner, the grandfather of skepticism

The name Gardner doesn't sound very Greek

 

[athon]

Well, quite, skepticism is about doubt at the core, something that JREF should perhaps also officially apply to religion, as it does with so many other things, agreed?

Ah, now, welcome to my pet zone. This is one thing I've spent many years studying (being a science communicator, definition is kind of an occupational hazard).

Remirol kind of hits the nail on the head. There are several interpreted meanings to the term, depending on the community you're communicating with.

You're correct that 'doubt' lies at the core of all meanings of the term. Yet the placement of this doubt depends on the context of the term. Most people in the community tend to associate the word 'skeptic' with an opposition to an otherwise accepted belief. In other words, it's always a negative thing that conflicts with a perceived truth. Take 'climate change skeptic' for an example.

Yet in communities such as this one, to be a skeptic is associated not with any one particular stance or context, but rather with an overall philosophy.

This contrast makes it difficult to communicate the core goals of critical thinking. People will readily associate the word skeptic with an adopted position before they will with an epistemology. Personally, even though I share this philosophy, in my line of work I avoid nominating myself as a skeptic, for this very reason.

Athon

 

[six7s]

One time, prompted by a discussion like this, I looked at the definitions of atheism in as many dictionaries as I could lay my hands on. I was surprised by the range of definitions for this one word.

The a in atheism is easy: without

Alas, the same cannot be said for the theism in atheism

 

[athon]

Anyhoo... the JREF is an atheist organisation - by default, at least - cos it sure ain't a theist organisation

Well, now we're getting pedantic on what's meant by 'officially and atheist organisation'.

Of course, but your logic you're correct. It is atheist. Does this mean it should also officially promote the fact it is not a sporting association, not a genealogical society, and not an animal rights group? It's not many things, so it's equally true to say it's not theistic.

I believe the nature of this thread, however, is to discuss if it should be recognised as an atheist organisation (I might have it wrong, of course, in which case I agree completely that by default we can call it atheistic just as we can call it a-vegan).

Athon

 

[SezMe]

The name Gardner doesn't sound very Greek

Ya know, after I made that post I wondered if someone would call me on that. Ok, ok, ok, "modern skepticism". Better?

ETA: Ok, ok, ok, before someone else rings my chimes, "modern American skepticism". Better?

 

[athon]

Well, we also need to be honest when a skeptical approach to a question actually does yield an answer.

A skeptical approach to ancient flat earth theory reveals that it's wrong.

A skeptical approach to the Holocaust can't help but conclude that yes, it happened.

We can't shrug at these things without doing a disservice to reason, which leads us to conclusions in these matters.

So, is JREF an atheist organization?

Well, no, if by that you mean that everyone in it is an atheist.

But there are those, myself included, who contend that skepticism, when applied honestly, fully, and consistently to the question of God, yields a "no".

So from my point of view, I reckon that it should be an atheist organization by default, in the same sense that it should be an a-Holocaust-denial organization.

The problem with that is that it is an apriori way of communicating.

'I'm skeptical. But I believe that the moon landing was hoaxed.'
'Really? Well, you can't be skeptical, because we skeptics don't share your conclusion, and therefore you're applying it wrong.'

By all means, if somebody shows faulty reasoning, that needs to be addressed. And, of course, I also can't see how somebody could believe in an interventionalist deity or homeopathy while effectively being skeptical. I'd need to listen to their reasoning. But therein lies the difference - organisations such as the JREF promote the thinking, with a focus on where it goes wrong and therefore leads to certain conclusions. To state categorically that there are conclusions which are impossible to have when thinking skeptically is, by that very epistemology, unskeptical.

Athon

 

[six7s]

People will readily associate the word skeptic with an adopted position before they will with an epistemology. Personally, even though I share this philosophy, in my line of work I avoid nominating myself as a skeptic, for this very reason.

Athon

It was this same perceived attitude that prompted me to coin the term veretic as a self-descriptor/aim

Anyhoo... this seems rather off-topic to me... or am I missing something?

 

[Piggy]

To state categorically that there are conclusions which are impossible to have when thinking skeptically is, by that very epistemology, unskeptical.

Not at all, as long as we're talking about a reasonably informed person.

In some cases, evidence is conclusive.

I understand why most folks would not put atheism into that category, and that's fine. But -- and we've been over this several times now in other threads -- there should be no reason why we cannot say, for instance, that it's simply not tenable to apply skepticism to ancient flat earth theory and conclude that it was correct. There is simply too much evidence against it. It cannot be true. One cannot be a skeptic and reasonably well informed and believe that the earth is flat like a pancake.

There is simply no support for an assertion that it is somehow unskeptical to state that skepticism renders certain beliefs untenable, because clearly it does.

 

[athon]

It was this same perceived attitude that prompted me to coin the term veretic as a self-descriptor/aim

Anyhoo... this seems rather off-topic to me... or am I missing something?

Meh, it's off topic when it gets moved to AAH. Otherwise, I say discuss away.

Not at all, as long as we're talking about a reasonably informed person.

In some cases, evidence is conclusive.

I understand why most folks would not put atheism into that category, and that's fine. But -- and we've been over this several times now in other threads -- there should be no reason why we cannot say, for instance, that it's simply not tenable to apply skepticism to ancient flat earth theory and conclude that it was correct. There is simply too much evidence against it. It cannot be true. One cannot be a skeptic and reasonably well informed and believe that the earth is flat like a pancake.

There is simply no support for an assertion that it is somehow unskeptical to state that skepticism renders certain beliefs untenable, because clearly it does.

Based on past discussions we've had, Piggy, I know there's nothing really to say to this. The moment we discuss philosophy, you defer to pragmatism. All well and good, but skepticism is a philosophy. You and I might agree on the outcomes because we share the same values and thresholds for evidence, but just because we share them doesn't make it an objective part of the philosophy. Communicating this is vital for encouraging good critical thinking skills, which is often missed by many skeptical communicators.

Athon

 

[Thomas]

This is another excellent opportunity to bang my drum about why we should not be self-identifying as skeptics. This is perfect. Thank you very much; I couldn't have asked for a better way to illustrate this point.

Teaching people to blindly doubt is bad; and that is what 'skepticism' is seen as.

We should be teaching people critical thinking; or to doubt when appropriate. If a policeman came up to me and held forth for ten minutes on where the "bad" crime areas in the city were, I would be foolish to doubt him. And yet, that seems to be exactly what too many self-identified "skeptics" fall into the trap of -- the trap of excessive ego, of trusting nothing but their own opinion and demanding proof for all challenges to their position.*

Do you then find that doubt is appropriate when it comes to religion, or did you ask a cop who said no?

All this does is make people think you're a dick and stop listening to you. And we cannot afford to have people stop listening to us.

You haven't spend much time in the R&P section have you.. Rethorical question.

I have a friend who's starting to get sucked into Mona Vie and their MLM scheme. I talked to her for awhile when she first heard of it, and warned her that MLMs never succeed, but she has her blinders firmly on out of random hope; the economy is bad, after all, and she thinks she needs quick money. After about 20 minutes of conversation, I finally backed off and said "Well, when you get the chance, ask some questions of the other people to make sure; if it's a scam, the answers will sound like this". I sent her some links about MLMs in general as well.

The point here is that when we left that conversation, she was still willing to listen to me. When things go south for her in the future and she finds that she's the only one buying her "product" at $40/bottle in order to maintain her obligations, she'll still be willing to listen when I remind her that this is exactly how every other MLM fails. Maybe I can get her to change her mind; maybe not. I know that as long as she's still talking to me, I have a chance.

Good luck with that. I have "deprogrammed" anything from rebirthers to core xians. Simply with suggestive doubt. The bleevers on this forum is usually a bit more hardcore tho, and come here for a reason with a very closed mindset.

If the JREF gets into the business of being an organization that promotes skepticism, rather than one that promotes critical thinking, then it will not advance its mission very rapidly, if at all.

It will advance its (non-)mission against religion and attract more agnostics and atheists if it declares itself an agnostic organization - more rational people to take on Sylvia B etc., and keeping it real, because Randi has attacked religion several times in Swift anyway.

* I am hardly immune to this disease, but I do try to self-police.

Or you could always ask the cops.

 

[Thomas]

Not a what but a who: Michael Shermer. In one of his books (can't remember which) he goes into some detail about agnosticism, atheism, and the many, many variants of each. He discusses how they differ and overlap. In short, at any but the most bluntest levels, they are not the same.

The problem with using a dictionary to resolve the issue is that they are descriptive, not prescriptive. Thus, because agnostic has been widely misused, you will find that misuse enshrined in various definitions. One time, prompted by a discussion like this, I looked at the definitions of atheism in as many dictionaries as I could lay my hands on. I was surprised by the range of definitions for this one word.

Yes, I knew it was Shermer, I just wanted his sources.. Since the correlation between agnosticsm and soft atheism is vast.. There's a fair article on the distinction on wiki.. Maybe I can just do this... soft atheist^WP.. And voila!

 

[Thomas]

Ah, now, welcome to my pet zone. This is one thing I've spent many years studying (being a science communicator, definition is kind of an occupational hazard).

Remirol kind of hits the nail on the head. There are several interpreted meanings to the term, depending on the community you're communicating with.

You're correct that 'doubt' lies at the core of all meanings of the term. Yet the placement of this doubt depends on the context of the term. Most people in the community tend to associate the word 'skeptic' with an opposition to an otherwise accepted belief. In other words, it's always a negative thing that conflicts with a perceived truth. Take 'climate change skeptic' for an example.

Yet in communities such as this one, to be a skeptic is associated not with any one particular stance or context, but rather with an overall philosophy.

This contrast makes it difficult to communicate the core goals of critical thinking. People will readily associate the word skeptic with an adopted position before they will with an epistemology. Personally, even though I share this philosophy, in my line of work I avoid nominating myself as a skeptic, for this very reason.

Athon

Sounds like a plan alright, but do you find that doubt is appropriate to apply when it comes to religion?