True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[jmercer]

I seems to me, true skeptics cannot be believers in major religions like Christianity or Islam. Religion, by definition, demands that its followers suspend critical thinking.

If you are a skeptic and demand evidence for everything else in your life, but then you make this one exception for your religion, you are corrupting your skepticism, and you are not a true skeptic.

I promised myself I'd stay out of the next debate on this... I shouldn't make promises to myself I can't keep. (Like "Today I am NOT going to eat a candy bar!" )

It seems to me that anyone who dismisses something inherently unprovable and untestable is also not a "true skeptic", as you've defined it above... such as the indeterminate state of Shrodinger's Cat. After all, the cat's indeterminancy cannot be proven - only assumed - since the act of observation theoretically defines the state.

Therefore, a "true skeptic" (per your example) would also refuse to believe the cat is in an indeterminate state - instead, they would insist that the cat is either alive or dead with no other possiblities. Yet the Cat is one of the cornerstones of Quantum Mechanics. Since QM predicts things quite well, I accept that QM is valid and correct, even if parts of it cannot be proven in a way that would (or should, based on your criteria) satisfy a "true skeptic".

Do you accept Quantum Mechanics as real, valid, and correct? If you do, then you're obviously not a "true skeptic" either.

In the same sense - however unlikely - historical "saint's miracles" ALSO aren't amenable to proving or disproving. They can only be speculated about. Condemning the supposed events as false is as fallacious a position as confirming the events were miraculous. Both show a lack of critical thinking.

Attempting to discredit a group of people simply because they have an untestable belief that you feel is false shows a lack of critical thinking on your part, IMO. Worse, perhaps, is it smacks of elevating skepticism from a method of uncovering the truth to a fanatical philosophy. I don't know if that was your intent, but that's how it seems to me.

Personally, I like my skepticism right where it is - in my toolbox, next to my logic, near to my objective data-gathering and over the drawer that holds my critical thinking.

(Dammit, Ashles - great post! I just did a preview of mine before posting, read yours, and wished I'd said that! )

 

[Irish Murdoch]

I seems to me, true skeptics cannot be believers in major religions like Christianity or Islam. Religion, by definition, demands that its followers suspend critical thinking.

Well, you could be a Don Cupitt-style Christian and be a sceptic, with no difficulty at all.

 

[plindboe]

Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

Darwin was profoundly religious, yet his contribution to our understanding of evolution was immense. He came to conclusions that disagreed with his beliefs. It's a good job we don't belittle his conclusions simply because he believed in a God.

[Nitpicking]
Only in his youth he was profoundly religious. He later lost his God belief, and professed himself as an agnostic.
[/Nitpicking]

Otherwise very fine post.

 

[BS Investigator]

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.

 

[Ashles]

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 think most of us understand that.

But scepticism is an approach. It is not a quality that is always on or always off.

For example could you tell who believes in God from their posts on these forums?

I know a couple of posters here who have excellent scientific knowledge and make interesting and logical posts, but also believe in God. Does this lessen the value of their posts?

It is a mistake to confuse being a sceptic with being a perfectly logical being.

And as I mentioned above there is no thing as a 'true sceptic' in the way you seem to be using the term.

 

[Ashles]

Re: Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Nitpicking]
Only in his youth he was profoundly religious. He later lost his God belief, and professed himself as an agnostic.
[/Nitpicking]

Oh yeah. Good point.

 

[Moose]

I work with computers every day. I know that computers function because of flowing electrons, though I've never seen one.

My training required me to design logic gates (on paper) using transistors, though I wouldn't recognize a physical transistor if you stuffed one up my nose. (And these days, transistors are small enough that I would probably end up wondering exactly why you were picking my nose, you weirdo.)

And yet, I accept that electrons exist, as do transistors. I can do so while retaining my skepticism, even if I must rely on my faith in the expertise of perfect strangers who I may never even have heard of, simply in order to go about my everyday business. Someday coding newbs may be taking the results of my work on faith as well.

Skepticism doesn't mean you have to individually test every single fact and bit of reason in your repertoire in order to know anything at all. The whole point of training and education is to avoid reinventing the wheel, after all.

I can remain skeptical while having faith that transistors work as advertized. I can have faith that electrons are real and behave in predictable ways in order to debug this function call.

I can do this because I always remember that knowledge I have not personally tested has limitations, and I understand what those limitations are. And so long as transistors and electrons do their thing for me, that's good enough to earn my paycheque.

It is possible to be a skeptic and have faith in a divine being, so long as it is understood that such faith is simply that. Faith. So long as one's faith is held firmly seperate from their knowledge, there is no conflict and skepticism remains.

And I say this as a (soft) atheist.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Of course no True Scotsman would ever put salt on his porridge

Awa' tae the Deil wi ye, ye morungeous neofeline gomerel!
Nae TRUE SCOTSMAN wad pit onythin BUT salt on his porridge!
Yer fallacy is fallacious, mon!

"True "sceptic though. Hah. There's a concept to conjure with.

Anyway, BSI- is it not better in your sight to be part sceptical (shall we say about WMD or ID) than not sceptical at all?

I put it to you that all behaviours are measurable by degree. No one is a true anything, all the time.

I have been known to slice a banana on my porridge.

 

[El_Spectre]

I call myself an atheist, as it seems to me the logical extension of skepticism. Makes sense to me, but I would hardly apply that rule to others.

I don't understand HOW intelligent people can be religious intellectually, but many are. I'd imagine it has something to do with the fact that we are wired to believe things that make us happy.

As a kid, mom and dad are there to comfort you... for babies, if mom is there, life is OK. It doesn't surprise me that folks extrapolate this to a magical daddy in the sky, that loves and cares for them.

Add that to the fact that neither skepticism nor many scientific concepts (including evolution) are NOT self evident to your average Joe, and you get a weird mishmash of beliefs.

Plus, as P&T tell us, 'everybody got a gris gris'

 

[luchog]

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.

Taking that comment to it's logical conclusion; a true skeptic could be nothing but a pure Solipsist. Everything beyond that is based on assumptions of validity of observations. Faith, if you will.

It is not contradictory for a skeptic to hold beliefs in the supernatural, since by definition it is unfalsifiable. Belief in falsifiable paranormal phenomena is, OTOH, inconsistent, if not actually hypocritical.

Christianity at it's core (without all the fundie accumulations) is unfalsifiable, and a matter of pure faith. Belief in something that cannot be proven or disproven. Science is pure empiricism, and thus naturally excludes metaphysics. Therefore true atheism is similarly a matter of pure faith; and the only purely skeptical approach to religion is that of agnosticism.

Or, to summarize into a sound bite, the scientific method can only answer the question "What is it?"; whereas religion can only answer "Why is it?" The problem comes in when one tries to answer the other's question. Science can give us detailed information on the most likely conditions of the Big Bang; but it can't tell us why there was a Big Bang.

 

[jmercer]

Good post, luchdog, especially the second and third paragraphs.

 

[Spindrift]

The more I think about this the more I am inclined to agree that "true" skeptics cannot be religious since true skeptics would doubt everything.

However, I'm not sure I would want to be a "true" skeptic. That would mean doubting almost everything in life. Sometimes you just have to take it on faith that what the guy at the Dunkin Donuts is putting into my coffee is sugar, not salt.

So in the real world, every skeptic has to pick and choose what they are going to be skeptical about. Being skeptical is a matter of degree, there is no absolute.

So being religious and still being skeptical might seem mutually exclusive but they are not. Actually don't most people who are religious pick and choose what parts of their particular religion they adhere to? I would think that the number of truly dogmatic believers is not that great.

 

[Beady]

Borrowing from Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things," Chapter 11: Shermer cites an amicus curiae brief in McLean v Arkansas, 1981 (one of the ongoing religion-in-schools debates), in which the five characteristics of science are listed as:

1. Guided by natural law
2. Explaination by reference to natural law
3. Empirically testable
4. Tentative conclusions
5. Falsifiablity
   [/list=1]
   
   Now, it seems to me that, by these five criteria, religion and science/skepticism share virtually no common ground. They are two entirely seperate structures that touch nowhere, until some jerk attempts to artificially superimpose one upon the other. That being the case, why can't the skeptic hold to both religion and science?

 

[BS Investigator]

I work with computers every day. I know that computers function because of flowing electrons, though I've never seen one.

My training required me to design logic gates (on paper) using transistors, though I wouldn't recognize a physical transistor if you stuffed one up my nose. (And these days, transistors are small enough that I would probably end up wondering exactly why you were picking my nose, you weirdo.)

And yet, I accept that electrons exist, as do transistors. I can do so while retaining my skepticism, even if I must rely on my faith in the expertise of perfect strangers who I may never even have heard of, simply in order to go about my everyday business. Someday coding newbs may be taking the results of my work on faith as well.

Skepticism doesn't mean you have to individually test every single fact and bit of reason in your repertoire in order to know anything at all. The whole point of training and education is to avoid reinventing the wheel, after all.

I can remain skeptical while having faith that transistors work as advertized. I can have faith that electrons are real and behave in predictable ways in order to debug this function call.

I can do this because I always remember that knowledge I have not personally tested has limitations, and I understand what those limitations are. And so long as transistors and electrons do their thing for me, that's good enough to earn my paycheque.

It is possible to be a skeptic and have faith in a divine being, so long as it is understood that such faith is simply that. Faith. So long as one's faith is held firmly seperate from their knowledge, there is no conflict and skepticism remains.

And I say this as a (soft) atheist.

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!

And anyway, as far as transistors and electrons go, if you really wanted to, you could find empirical data about their existence and nature. Many thousands of educated humans understand them and have scientifically documented them. "God" on the other hand as no basis in fact or reality, no evidence to look up or examine scientifically.

Your analogy is way off.

 

[BS Investigator]

...the only purely skeptical approach to religion is that of agnosticism.

And there we have it. You are right.

 

[Donn]

Religious person + critical thought + honest internal examination must = agnostic over time.

You can be sceptic and religious at the same time, but not (honestly) for long.

If you claim both that means you are dual booting baby - time to kick out the windows, hurdle the gates and join the penguins!

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

I disagree wholeheartedly.

A skeptic follows the evidence. It is entirely possible, in this culture, for someone to ask the right questions, to question the right claims, but to ask these questions of the wrong people, and to receive answers which lead to religious belief.

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.

 

[jmercer]

And there we have it. You are right.

Not to be argumentative, but that pretty much depends on your definition of agnostic. There are people who claim they are agnostic but whom other's feel are really deists; there are those who feel that agnostics are actually mild atheists, etc.

As I said - belief in something untestable and unprovable doesn't mean that you're not a skeptic. Is the Cat dead, alive, or neither?

 

[El_Spectre]

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.

Nonsense. There are a whole lot of people who honestly believe incredibly complex religious 'theories'. People are taken in by logical fallacies, and some are never taught to value reason.

Don't mistake your own experience for the "right" or even "common" one. There's a whole range of education and intelligence out there.

You'll notice I'm not telling you what opinions YOU should not express. Think about that.

 

[El_Spectre]

Not to be argumentative, but that pretty much depends on your definition of agnostic. There are people who claim they are agnostic but whom other's feel are really deists; there are those who feel that agnostics are actually mild atheists, etc.

As I said - belief in something untestable and unprovable doesn't mean that you're not a skeptic. Is the Cat dead, alive, or neither?

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"