True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Z]

I never claim to be a 'true skeptic'. I think I've said this before. I'm more of a demi-skeptic.

I don't reject claims because of a lack of evidence; rather, those claims which ought to have evidence, yet don't (like homeopathy) are rejected.

I don't think a true skeptic can be most forms of Christian; though there are forms of Christianity that relate the entire Christ story as a simple allegory and not as an actual event that might well qualify to allow a believer to be a skeptic. The same goes with most other religions - but I must stress, most.

I believe in the Divine, but ultimately, it's a sort of Divinity that doesn't really matter to us. I don't think anything you can do will change what the Divine is going to do; you can't be damned by the Divine, nor blessed. As such, I believe that (to use the common terms) God, if God exists at all, exists as an irrelevant figure.

Why, then, bother to believe in the Divine? Because of the sheer inherent beauty and wonder of the Universe. For me, this is all it takes to believe that there is - or was - a primary propitiator of the entire Ball-O-Wax.

That being said, I don't believe that my belief or disbelief matters in the least; neither to me, nor to the Divine. I don't think there's any rules that the Divine wants us to follow, or that the Divine cares for us in the least. But I know it feels more personal to me, when I see a glorious sunset or watch a meteoroid fall, to thank the Divine for bringing this beauty into being.

Am I really religious? I don't know - it's been debated. I don't offer up prayers or do rituals on a regular basis; for me, the practice of faith is more about what I can do for others, to make them more successful or feel better about themselves. I know that to make a statement like, "there's absolutely no evidence for God" is a bit naive. As I see it, everything that is, is evidence for a God.

But when someone tells me that God impregnated a mortal woman with his seed, or that God makes the souls of ho-mo-SEX-uals burn eternally, or that I can cure my family of liberal thinking by sending contributions to the Pat Meyefannie Foundation for Religious Somethingorotherism, the skepticism emerges from within.

It's a pretty closed mind that declares, absolutely, that 'true Skeptics cannot be Religious' - especially with the hundreds of thousands of religions out there today. I mean, what about those who believe that Man's eventual evolutionary destiny is to become God, through science and technology? Does that count as a religion too? Should skeptics be leery of this as well?

As said before - all depends on how you choose to define 'religion' and 'God', now doesn't it?

Dogdoctor, religions teach humans very dangerous ideas. For one, it teaches that high authority (aka, "The Lord") must never be questioned. Religious followers are taught to turn off their critical thinking and follow orders blindly -- even the most outrageous orders ("God" telling Abraham to kill his own son). This is a recipe for disaster, because when a population cannot think for itself or question authority, it is easily misled by powerful leaders into wars of aggression or other horrible acts.

Beyond that, religion is extremely divisive. We need forces at work on this planet bringing us together as human beings, but religion divides us. "My sky lord is better than your sky lord!" "No, mine is the only true sky lord!" and so on. The major religions humanity is straddled with like Islam and Christianity, almost by definition, are divisive. They teach their followers that theirs is the only "true" religion, and many claim that everyone who does not believe their "true God" is going straight to Hell, unless they can be "converted," or in the case of literal belief, "slaughtered."

I take it you have very, very limited exposure to non-Abrahamist religion. For example, many Wiccan beliefs claim that all people must find their own paths to the Divine, and that the only religious truth is the subjective truth of the believer. Our own church, for example, teaches us that the Divine is a part of all of us, and we a part of the Divine; so that our own will, our own decisions, our own choices - good and bad - are also the Will of the Divine.

Look at many Pagan and Wiccan churches; though some are just as divisive as the mainstream churches, others teach that all faiths are the same faith, though their believers may not know that. Consider Unitarians, for another example.

You're trying to build up a strawman here, BSI, and I think we can all see that pretty clearly.

 

[Dogdoctor]

BS Investigator,
What does atheism teach us? I am more afraid of atheists than your average Christian. Atheism does not inherently involve ethical or moral principles. Chrisitanity does teach moral behavior and most Christians are aware of the 10 commandments as a guideline for behavior. Buhdism has it's 8 fold path and 4 (or5 I forget) noble truths as guidleines for those who are philosophically challenged. Have you read Paul Kurtz 'The New Skepticism'? While that is an arguement for moral behavior from a skeptical perspective, it is pretty difficult reading for me an amature philosopher. Just imagine some bozo who is unable to think his way out of a wet paper sack. Why should he be ethical or behave morally? Is atheism going to help him behave in a moral manner? While religion might not either it certainly has a much better chance of accomplishing the task. Or do you think morality is not important? I think you are mistaking the literal interpretation of the Bible with the practical application of it's teaching as exist in most religions today. In my search for the truth, I have talked to preists and other religious teachers. To my surprise many of them question much of the teachings that seem illogical. Some display what I would call deep thought about things that concerned me. I think you need to take a closer look at religion, a skeptical look not an atheistic look.

 

[Moose]

I am more afraid of atheists than your average Christian.

You don't encounter very many atheists in your daily life, do you?

Is fear of god the only reason you're moral? No other reason?

 

[BS Investigator]

BS Investigator,
What does atheism teach us? I am more afraid of atheists than your average Christian. Atheism does not inherently involve ethical or moral principles. Chrisitanity does teach moral behavior and most Christians are aware of the 10 commandments as a guideline for behavior. Buhdism has it's 8 fold path and 4 (or5 I forget) noble truths as guidleines for those who are philosophically challenged. Have you read Paul Kurtz 'The New Skepticism'? While that is an arguement for moral behavior from a skeptical perspective, it is pretty difficult reading for me an amature philosopher. Just imagine some bozo who is unable to think his way out of a wet paper sack. Why should he be ethical or behave morally? Is atheism going to help him behave in a moral manner? While religion might not either it certainly has a much better chance of accomplishing the task. Or do you think morality is not important? I think you are mistaking the literal interpretation of the Bible with the practical application of it's teaching as exist in most religions today. In my search for the truth, I have talked to preists and other religious teachers. To my surprise many of them question much of the teachings that seem illogical. Some display what I would call deep thought about things that concerned me. I think you need to take a closer look at religion, a skeptical look not an atheistic look.

Dogdoctor, you have some good questions here.

I do not believe humans need religion to be "moral."

Let me recommend that you read Micheal Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil," and see what you think.

For now, you can listen to Shermer addressing some of these issues on a recent episode of the "Skepticality" radio show here:

http://libsyn.com/media/skepticality/012-skepticality-michaelshermer.mp3

Let me know what you think and we can discuss these ideas further.

 

[Dogdoctor]

So it's gonna take an hour to download that file. In the mean time in your own words what does atheism have to offer the philosophically challenged individual? I think some humans don't need religion to be moral, others do. Atheism doesn't offer anything except hatred for religion. Skepticism is a thinking persons philosophy and not for those who can't figure things out. I will buy Shermers book and read it but in the mean time if you have read it and you understand it answer my questions.

 

[Dogdoctor]

You don't encounter very many atheists in your daily life, do you?

Is fear of god the only reason you're moral? No other reason?

I don't socialize with atheists and I am not sure why none of my friends are atheists but that is how it is. I am a thinking person and have put lots of effort into thinking about morality and ethics. Atheism as a philosophy offers nothing to those who are your typical people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about how behavior affects others and the world in general. Atheism is basically the lack of a religion. From this board I can see many of them are illogically against religion. I guessed this from what I have seen of atheists elsewhere. This is why when people ask me I say I am an agnostic since I am not against religion. I don't want people throwing me in that category with those irrational religion haters.

 

[Z]

I think well-enforced, consistant, and fair law can easily take the place of religious dogma when seeking a reason for morality. Likewise, the nature of social pressure and cultural dogma can serve much the same role - I believe - though, truly, it could be argued that our social/cultural system is so deeply entrenched in a basic religious paradigm, that we wouldn't know if a culture could exist atheistically and maintain a moral foundation.

And, certainly, religion does a pretty damned lousy job of churning out model citizens, doesn't it?

But I do think that, deep down inside, we're all animals, of one kind or another; and that something is needed to keep the animal side firmly under control - whether that's fear of God, or of the Law, or of social stigma, or self-conscious awareness. Problem is, IMHO, most people haven't really become self-aware yet.

 

[Moose]

Atheism doesn't offer anything except hatred for religion.

Dogdoctor, I'm not laying any traps for you here. And despite the rather offensive misconceptions you've twice displayed just now, I don't hate you for your religion. Hate's a much too strong and rather irrelevant emotion to be feeling for what should be an informative discussion.

It'll do you good to expand your horizons a little. Maybe you can come to realize you don't need to be so afraid of atheists.

It's not a difficult question, after all: is fear of god the only reason you're a moral person?

 

[Dogdoctor]

It's not a difficult question, after all: is fear of god the only reason you're a moral person?

Excuse me but I thought you might read between the lines. I think that people who are capable of extended philosophical thought can realise that treating fellow humans in a moral manner is desirable behavior. However many people are not so capable or inclined even if they were capable. So what is your point? By the way I am insulted taht you say I have religion.

 

[Moose]

Excuse me but I thought you might read between the lines.

Psychic abilities are not among my talents, I'm afraid. I'd rather hear it straight up than try to guess what you might have meant.

I think that people who are capable of extended philosophical thought can realise that treating fellow humans in a moral manner is desirable behavior.

Not a bad answer.

To take this a step further, I've seen some informal mentions of experiments where people were sequestered and instructed in such a way as to create and maintain artificial anarchies.

Now, an anarchy is, by definition, a lawless (un)society. Everyone for themselves. It isn't much of a stretch to say that lawlessness and immorality are within arms reach of each other.

But, no matter what the researchers did to keep things stirred up, the subjects often started banding together, if only by twos, and cooperating for mutual protection and benefit.

However many people are not so capable or inclined even if they were capable.

Another question for personal reflection, I don't really need an answer to this (I won't be up tonight long enough to read it): can you think of any devout christians who behave in a manner you consider to be unethical?

If you need any help here, try googling Torquemada and have a look at the wikipedia link that comes up.

So what is your point?

Simply this.

You might consider the possibility that morality and religion are concepts that are mostly independent of each other.

From my perspective and by my understanding of history, it seems possible that we might just have the cart before the horse, that religion may be somewhat of a consequence of morality, not a causal factor. A justification after-the-fact, if you will.

The short answer is that I'm moral quite simply because I am. It's a part of me.

 

[Dogdoctor]

can you think of any devout christians who behave in a manner you consider to be unethical?

Yes I realise there are those who are supposedly devout Chrisitans who don't follow the ten commandments .

You might consider the possibility that morality and religion are concepts that are mostly independent of each other.
*snip*

The short answer is that I'm moral quite simply because I am. It's a part of me.

Ok I can see that as a possiblity, however my guess based on experience is that the fear of god inhibits people from doing some things. These people would not follow atheists cajoling them into moral behavior. My theory is that this is why there is no great atheistic societies in the world.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

He might be "very skeptical" about the Loch Ness Monster, but if he believes in the so-called "resurrection" or a guaranteed afterlife, or any of the other supernatural claims of his religion, no, I would not consider him to be "very skeptical" overall.

I do not believe in the resurrection either, but in the eyes of fanatical old Scottish farmer who stagged out with a few too many whiskies under his belt and wows and declares he saw Nessy swimming out there with his own eyes would simply ignore the Bishop's belief in the resurrection and totally erelevent to his argument because of the one track mindedness over Nessy.

Don't you think a teetotaler who does whiskey shots on the side is lacking something as a teetotaler? He would not be a very credible teetotaler if he was slamming beers every Sunday, how would he?

It the best analogy I would use I would prefer use the analogy of Lance Armstrong who is still a great cyclist in spite of the fact he uses other modes of transport the get around like his own car.

CDR

 

[CaptainManacles]

While religion might not either it certainly has a much better chance of accomplishing the task [of providing moral guidence].

I disagree. In my experience people base their moral beliefs on their personal experiences, and people will use religion to rationalize their behavior weather for good or for evil. I feel that being a good person is a rational choice, and as such, a religion that is irrational does more harm then good. Furthermore, the really really horrible things that people do depend on them divorcing themselves from reality altogether, and irrational religious beliefs help that proccess.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Well, I'm reasonably sure that the Heisenburg Uncertaintly Principle hasn't been junked quite yet. The Cat is just a paradoxical thought experiment meant to show that QT and QM are incomplete; however, the uncertainty principle, wave collapse and quantum entanglement are alive and kicking.

Regardless, it's not whether or not the Cat is still there that's being asked - it's the state of the Cat.

Well, yeah, uncertaintly is still alive and kicking, but the cat thing hardly implies that faith is neccisary, though you're using a lot of smilies so you're probably talking tongue in cheek. I have a really hard time telling any more, I've spent so much time argueing people who truely believe things that seem like a joke, I can't tell when people are kidding.

 

[Beady]

Oops!

 

[normdoering]

I have a really hard time telling any more, I've spent so much time argueing people who truely believe things that seem like a joke, I can't tell when people are kidding.

I know what you mean.

But I was watching South Park tonight and it occured to me that atheism can seem like some kind of incomprehensible joke to religious people -- just like every other religion can.

It was a show making light of the priest sex abuse scandal in the Catholic church. All the parents in South Park were so outraged by the scandal that they decided to become atheists (as if that's how you become one). In addition to that, Cartman, the fat kid, had also found out that if you shove food up your butt you'll poop out your mouth. That caught on at the same time the atheism did. So during the show, every time someone made an atheistic argument or point -- they'd poop out of their mouths next.

They also really ripped into the Catholic church. But in the end they had the good preacher say something like "the Bible just taught us to be nice to each other, it wasn't about popes, churchs, rituals... yada yada." And that's what a lot of people who've never read the Bible think. They get told about good semaritans, not casting the first stone and love your neighbor as yourself and think that's the Bible.

Who could be against being nice to people?

I think that's how the South Park guys see it.

Mark Twain --What Is Man and Other Philosophical Writings:

All democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it; none but the republicans and mugwumps know it. All the republicans are insane, but only the democrats and mugwumps can perceive it. The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.

 

[Beady]

Atheism doesn't offer anything except hatred for religion.

I would challenge this. Not believing there is a God, or believing there is no god, does not require hatred, any more than not being a UFOlogist.

It is true that many skeptics do hate and scorn both believers and UFOlogists, but that's bigotry, not skepticism.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

Oxymoron

Wouldn't the term "true skeptic" be an oxymoron or a bit paradoxical? Because skepticism in its most extreme form states that all knowledge is impossible at least for us humans and they should to reserve judgement for everything. that should also includes the merits of all philosophies including skepticism , so the expression "true skeptic" also cannot be known and therefore they can never be sure its true anyway.

Would it be better if you used the expression, extreme skeptic, or hard skeptic.

 

[Beady]

Re: Oxymoron

Wouldn't the term "true skeptic" be an oxymoron or a bit paradoxical? Because skepticism in its most extreme form states that all knowledge is impossible at least for us humans and they should to reserve judgement for everything. that should also includes the merits of all philosophies including skepticism , so the expression "true skeptic" also cannot be known and therefore they can never be sure its true anyway.

Would it be better if you used the expression, extreme skeptic, or hard skeptic.

I like it.

 

[jmercer]

Well, yeah, uncertaintly is still alive and kicking, but the cat thing hardly implies that faith is neccisary, though you're using a lot of smilies so you're probably talking tongue in cheek. I have a really hard time telling any more, I've spent so much time argueing people who truely believe things that seem like a joke, I can't tell when people are kidding.

Hm... sorry. 2 minute penalty for excessive use of smilies!

But more seriously - the Cat is - as I said - just a thought experiment that was designed by Shrodinger to show that QM is incomplete by creating a paradox. I could have used a more technical example, but the Cat came to mind as an easy one to use.

Ignoring the somewhat whimsical cat, it remains that in QT the state of a given particle is theoretically indeterminate until observed. Once observed, the particle assumes a specific state - Until then, the particle's state isn't assigned. Of course, there's no way to know if that's true or not because the moment you try to determine it, the particle assumes a state - so the indeterminate state of the particle, while predicted by QT, is believed to be true - but there's no possible proof.

We can see the result of it - but we always have to assume that indeterminancy is at work rather than some other undiscovered mechanism that would produce the same result.

In fact, this has been demonstrated by some CERN scientists - you can get a quick overview here.

If there's any further question about the reality of indeterminancy and entanglement, these scientists opened their own company providing encryption products based on it. Here's a PDF explaining how it works - and how any attempt to tap the line carrying the data would create errors, because the (then) indeterminate state of the particles would be disturbed.

Shrodinger's Cat still works as a thought experiment, as does my statement concerning it - belief in indeterminancy is actually an act of faith because there can never be any proof it's true.