True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[jmercer]

I suppose a person can claim adherance to a religion and pick and choose the aspects that they accept but if one is a Catholic it seems to me that one must suspend rational thought and not be, as we would define it, a sceptic.

In Catholisism there are dogmas that are necessary to believe to be a Catholic. For example consider the Apostles Creed:



A pretty succinct description of some of the stuff required. Let's take Saints for a moment. To believe in the fact of Sainhood one must believe in miracles. How can one be a sceptic and hold that belief?

Hey, Ed - I meant to respond to this, but got busy doing other things. You can still call yourself a Catholic, but you're a lapsed Catholic unless one of the following occurs:

1) You publicly preach your doubts - then you can be excommunicated, probably as a heretic

2) You renounce Catholicism publicly

3) You join another religion

Other than that, you're still considered Catholic even if you don't believe, because the thinking is that you're having a crisis of faith.

 

[jmercer]

What gets me is that I use 'atheist' in the classical, "I don't believe" sense, but it's been hijacked to mean "there is no god", an assertion I feel is untenable. So now I have to say "atheist, agnostic.... heathen, whatever"

That's part of what I really liked about luchdog's post - stating that "there is no God" really is an act of faith because there's no proof.

Skeptically, all anyone can really say is "There is no conclusive evidence of God, therefore, while I acknowledge the possiblility of God, I withold judgement on the matter." To me, that's atheism.

The hardcore hijacking of the concept was courtesy of early Russian Communism, and was emphasized by Stalin and Lenin. Religion was seen as a threat to the beginnings of Communistic government in Russia because it provided a social strata independent of the government - not to mention a cultural link to the past. Therefore, it was ruthlessly demonized and "hard" atheism ("There is no god!") propagandized relentlessly to all the children and adults in the USSR for generations.

This is also why many Americans have a problem with the word "atheist" - because Communism was demonized for generations in America as the flip side of that coin... "The Godless Communists" was the watchphrase for generations.

If anyone wants proof, I'll dig up the historical references. I just want to make sure that the blame for stealing the definition goes to the "right" folks, and not the people here at JREF.

The point is that the "hardcore" definition of atheism just the flip side of theism in my book - and requires just as much faith.

 

[Donn]

Skeptically, all anyone can really say is "There is no conclusive evidence of God, therefore, while I acknowledge the possiblility of God, I withold judgement on the matter." To me, that's atheism.

That's it in the hardened shell of a small fruit.

Love the new suit J.

 

[IIRichard]

Some of you are missing the point here.

I am arguing that a skeptic (a grown person knowledgeable in the "ways of skepticism" ) who consciously chooses to "believe in religion" is not a true skeptic, or is corrupting his or her skepticism.

I am not arguing that BS investigator "believes religion is false." I have no evidence either way.

I was going to stay out of this but I've 15 minutes to kill so here goes.

Part of the problem is confusing "proof" with "evidence". There is no proof for evolution, quantum mechanics or relativity. There is a hell of a lot of evidence for all three, along with all the other hard sciences. Likewise, there is no proof for the existence of God but some people believe that there is sufficient evidence that they choose to believe.

I cannot prove that a piece of art or music is beautiful or not. All I have is my emotional reaction to the piece and others may strongly disagree with my assessment. However, that doesn't make my belief any less valid. My training and experience may cause others to give my opinion greater weight than the opinion of someone else but that doesn't change the fact that many of my beliefs are simply not capable of scientific investigation. I like North European High Gothic, you like Nine Inch Nails (gag).

To insist that every set of beliefs one holds must be subject to scientific investigation is not merely silly, it renders most of what makes life worth living, art, music, love, literature and Harry Potter irrelevant, which it most surely is not.

IIRichard

 

[El_Spectre]

To insist that every set of beliefs one holds must be subject to scientific investigation is not merely silly, it renders most of what makes life worth living, art, music, love, literature and Harry Potter irrelevant, which it most surely is not.

IIRichard

On matters of taste, I'm with you. I would suggest that, if you have to define a whole class of experience (call it paranormal, religious, whatever) specifically to give an out from the logical conclusion that such things don't exist... well, that's wishfull thinking at best, intellectual dishonesty at worst.

 

[LostAngeles]

Re: Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

Unless you are totally oblivious to what is around you or even on television, NO, there is no way for that to happen. And a skeptic who would say such a thing reveals that he has other motives.

Furthermore, you are a moderator, and should not express such opinions here, because there is no way for me to block your nonsense.

For someone to ask the right questions to the wrong person and get wrong information is impossible? I... WHAT? You seriously believe that can't happen?

And as for, "blocking nonsense," if your attitude is going to be, "OH NOES!!!!!!11eleventyone DIFFERING OPINION!! BLOCKZ0R!!!!" are you really any different from the woos who stick their fingers in their ears and cry, "LA LA I can't hear you LA LA"? That's not the point of discussion.

Furthermore, if you have a problem with some of the moderators here having a religious inclination, then I'm under the impression it's a bigger problem than you think, Danish Junior.

 

[BS Investigator]

Part of the problem is confusing "proof" with "evidence". There is no proof for evolution, quantum mechanics or relativity. There is a hell of a lot of evidence for all three, along with all the other hard sciences. Likewise, there is no proof for the existence of God but some people believe that there is sufficient evidence that they choose to believe.

And they are flat out wrong. There is ZERO evidence for the exsitence of "God" as defined by modern Ambrahamic religions. Zero. How can a true sketpic, using the scientific method and critical thinking, allow themselves to "believe that there is sufficient evidence" for "God"? It is not possible if you follow the credo that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I cannot prove that a piece of art or music is beautiful or not. All I have is my emotional reaction to the piece and others may strongly disagree with my assessment. However, that doesn't make my belief any less valid. My training and experience may cause others to give my opinion greater weight than the opinion of someone else but that doesn't change the fact that many of my beliefs are simply not capable of scientific investigation. I like North European High Gothic, you like Nine Inch Nails (gag).]

Taste in music or the details of one's love life is not a matter for scientific scrutiny.

And let's also consider the scale of the claims being made. If you tell me you kissed a girl in the 10th grade, I will take your word for it. If you tell me you had sex with the entire Swedish Bikini team in the 10th grade, I will need some proof.

Again, religions are making EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS, about how the entire planet's population must live by the "only truth" -- how humans should have sex, conduct their daily lives, fight wars, as well as making all kinds of unsupported promises about the wonderful "life after death" awaiting us if we follow their rules.

Sorry, but any true skeptic is going to need some evidence before they "believe" in religion. And, of course, there is none.

 

[El_Spectre]

Sorry, but any true skeptic is going to need some evidence before they "believe" in religion. And, of course, there is none.

Of course there isn't (see my signature). The human mind is susceptible to suggestion and poor logic. It was designed, after all, to find food on the savannha, not deconstruct deities. I agree with your main point, but you're going to drive folks away with such agressive argument (I speak from extremely personal experience).

 

[Moose]

We are talking about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. I don't ask for evidence if someone tells me they drove to work today, but I WOULD require evidence if they said they flew to work on a dragon's back!

My analogy is not off at all.

Someone professing to believe in some divine being is not making a claim but a statement of faith, which is no different at all from accepting that you drove to work (or flew a-dragonback).

Belief itself is not a claim.

Here's the difference:

"I can fly by flapping my arms" is a claim, and is perfectly testable through the scientific method.

"I believe Joe can fly by flapping his arms" is not in itself a claim. It's a statement of faith about a claim. While the embedded claim is testable, the statement of belief itself, not being a claim, must ultimately be taken on faith (or disbelieved on the very same basis.)

A statement of belief is entirely kosher so long as what evidence exists outweighs the threshold of credulity. This threshold varies wildly by the individual and the context.

If you tell me that you drove to work today, fine, I have no reason to disbelieve you, so I'll probably take your claim on faith.

But if Ray and Egon tell me they saw you hanging out at the pool hall, and your boss calls to find out if you're okay since she didn't see you at work today, my threshold of evidence will go up, and you will need to present considerable evidence to earn my belief.

If, however, you were my best friend, I would likely take on faith that you weren't lying to me, and would likely believe you regardless of the evidence (up to the point where I didn't really care where you were today, anyway.)

One claim on your part, three contexts, and three vastly different, yet all perfectly reasonable standards of evidence on my part used to evaluate your claim, depending on context.

This is why "I believe in a god" is kosher while "God exists" is not, in terms of skepticality. The former is a statement of faith. The latter is a claim. Science and skepticism concern themselves with claims, not belief.

 

[crimresearch]

As a generalization, the OP is on the right track..except of course where it misses the mark...


As mentioned, it all depends on what you mean by religion.

For example, Quakers meet every definition of a religion that I can think of offhand, and they have atheists, agnostics, and skeptics among them...that alone would appear to keep the OP from being an absolute truth.

 

[El_Spectre]

But if Ray and Egon...

But then, you have to wonder about trusting 2 guys who's slogan is "we're ready to believe you"

 

[Moose]

But then, you have to wonder about trusting 2 guys who's slogan is "we're ready to believe you"

Exactly.

 

[BS Investigator]

Skeptically, all anyone can really say is "There is no conclusive evidence of God, therefore, while I acknowledge the possiblility of God, I withold judgement on the matter." To me, that's atheism.

Well you can still have some ideas and "judgements" about whether God exists. Yes, you must always leave open the possibility, but you must do that with everything which cannot be proven false. I believe in "God" exactly as much as I believe in "the Tooth Fairy," which is to say not at all.

There are reasons to doubt "God." For one, humans have a history of making up gods, for thousands and thousands of years. We make them up, then forget about them and make up new ones, following a pretty clear pattern (Hero with a Thousand Faces). And it's easy to understand why. We are afraid of dying, so it makes sense that we might invent stories or fables or religions that make us feel better after our friends have died, or when we are facing death ourselves.

I can't say 100% sure that fire-breathing dragons don't fly through the sky, but I think they do not.

 

[El_Spectre]

I can't say 100% sure that fire-breathing dragons don't fly through the sky, but I think they do not.

This is fair. Bear in mind that we can at least test for the existence of flying dragons... airborne beasts would presumably conform to physical laws.

The creator (Be it God, Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhnbs) or Flying Spaghetti Monster) of such laws would presumably not be subject to them... I'm not saying I believe in god(s), but I can understand how some might (and still be logically consistent).

 

[Moose]

I can't say 100% sure that fire-breathing dragons don't fly through the sky, but I think they do not.

A statement which is, at its core, a statement of faith. One made entirely without the benefit of evidence.

The corresponding claim would be "Dragons do not exist", which without evidence would not be a skeptical statement.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

There is no true sceptic.

Every single person makes assumptions every day and operates on beliefs.

I agree with this statement and further go on to say the human mind is limited and has to accept some concepts without knowledge of the all the properties and principles invovled. Only a God could be a true skeptic if there were one.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Does not believing in an IPU powered by 1.5 volt polka-dot drunken fairies being the creator and controller of the universe qualify as basing one's point of view on faith? Should one be agnostic to each and every juvenile, nutty, completely absurd claim or concept? To me, that is in practical terms as useless a philosophical position as solipsism - lack of falsifiability is not enough reason to not reject some claims. None of the 'formal' (or any other) religions' basic tenets are distinguishable from any other silly, absurd claims typically espoused by 'woo woos' - only older, better organized and more popular. The religions lean against appeal to popularity, appeal to ignornace and appeal to authority (heck, in Denmark you can even in 2005 be punished for the totally absurd concept of 'blasphemy'). The concept of deities is to me so patently useless, absurd, contrary to logic, evidence and science, and there actually exists so much falsifiable evidence, as to why and how humans have invented and sustain religious concepts and deities, and still invent deities and religious concepts, that, IMO, only religious apologetics and philosophers would seriously call atheism 'faith based' - and I won't waste a second on solipisism. But then again, I'm very thick headed. I simply cannot comprehend why any sane, scientifically well educated, intelligent modern person in 2005 can hold any religious beliefs, in particular in deities - I can only understand it in terms of cognitive dissonance as the results of tremendous cultural and social conditioning from church, parents, peers and teachers. As skeptics are only human, they, too, are victims of religious 'brainwashing', whwther it is intentional or not. Fear and actual social isolation are strong motivators for religious faith. I count myself fortunate I don't live in a part of the World where religious faith is forced down your throat - but we still need to separate church and state here in Denmark...

BTW - religion may seek the answer to the question "why?", but the very nature of religion prevents the religious from ever getting finding any truthful answer to that question, IMO.

 

[El_Spectre]

BTW - religion may seek the answer to the question "why?", but the very nature of religion prevents the religious from ever getting finding any truthful answer to that question, IMO.

Personally, I attempt to avoid absolutes precisely because I've been wrong many, many times before in life. I don't expect to ever believe in god, but a positive assertion the other way is a stepping stone to dogma and a closed mind.

Skepticism seems a better approach, and fits well with my goals.

 

[Tracy Ann]

God Gene

Religion seems to be quite different from spirituality. When I read about the "God gene", and consider the theory that humans' spiritual belief is an evolutionary trait, I wonder if I pay a price by claiming myself an atheist. I will say that the times I've allowed myself to think there's a higher power to turn things over to, I'm much happier, and I enjoy my life more. If I'm spiritual, it's personal, and a blueprint for living that works. Whether there's a God or not.

It's all very confusing to me right now. It almost seems that it's the belief that matters, not the object of the belief.

 

[BS Investigator]

The corresponding claim would be "Dragons do not exist", which without evidence would not be a skeptical statement.

No, no. You are the one making that leap, not me. I said I cannot be 100% sure that dragons do not roam the skies, but I don't think they do.

As Anders W. Bonde pointed out, I cannot be sure that invisible polka-dotted faires aren't running around our woods, but again, I don't think so. Technically, I am agnostic about dragons, fairies and the Christian god. But to put it in blunt terms, any skeptic who believes in any of those things (and they all have exactly the same amount of evidence going for them = none) is suspending their skepticism.

You either believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or you do not.