True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Moose]

If a person says "Prayer makes me feel at peace with the world," again, what's the point of applying skepticism to this? Are we going to take a CAT scan of the believer's brain in mid-prayer to measure whether stress levels do go down?

It is only when religion makes a claim -- i.e., God created the world in six days -- that skepticism and science can apply.

When self-identifying skeptics attempt to apply their skepticism to a person's unverifiable beliefs, it reflects more on the skeptic than the believer.

Exactly, and well said.

 

[jmercer]

If you have time I would be interested in the references. I know that the Soviet state was officially atheist, but I did not know this involved "hard atheism", or was drilled into children.

I always assumed that "hard atheism" was a theist straw man.

I'll try to find some online info, but let me recommend this book to you:

"Godless Communists": Atheism in State and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917-1932 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2000).

This particular book will give you the kind of information I was referring to. BTW, US politicians - always ready to spin up the masses with anything that'll get them worked up - played up that aspect of Soviet Communism as a part of their efforts to get the American public "on-board" with the whole communist-threat thing. In fact - unless I'm mistaken - during the McCarthy era, people who were not officially affiliated with a religion were assumed to be athiestic and automatically suspected of communistic tendencies.

Well - I just got done searching, and there's a ton of stuff out there on the 'net - but it's either book references or from questionable sources, so I won't link to 'em. (Just do a search on "Soviet Atheism" in your favorite search engine.)

As far as I remember from my history classes, though, the Soviet school system taught about religions in a negative way while praising the benefits of atheism; they also emphasized that the Soviet State was officially atheist and it was made critically clear to youths that in order to join the Party, you had to be an Atheist. Of course, everyone knew that only Party members could rise to positions of authority in the State.

Openly religious figures often "disappeared", sending a further message back to the masses, etc. So religion of any kind was actively opposed and hardcore atheism was not only endorsed by the state - but enforced by the state as well.

 

[jmercer]

And they are flat out wrong. There is ZERO evidence for the exsitence of "God" as defined by modern Ambrahamic religions. Zero.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God - it's just all anecdotal, ranging from biblical texts to personal testimonials. I will stipulate that anecdotal evidence is weak, unreliable and inconclusive - but you cannot deny that it's evidence.

It's a good thing that quality of evidence is more important that quantity, isn't it? Even so, saying that there is zero evidence for the existence of God is a fallacious statement. Zero non-anecdotal evidence, perhaps - but that's not the same as zero evidence.

(edited to correct spelling error)

 

[crimresearch]

...Just because you felt a sudden surge of "awe" doesn't mean you can toss all the rules of sketicism and the scientific method right out the window!

Again, skeptics ask for scientifically valid evidence before they believe extraordinary claims, claims like "if you don't praise the Lord, you will be roasted in the unquenchable flames of Hell for eternity." That seems like a very extraordinary claim, and I don't care what kind of tingle ran down your spine, or what "voice" in the sky told you he was real, a claim that outrageous is going to need some serious, serious evidence. And in fact, THERE IS NONE.

Ahhh... the old 'Argument by large font'...

Did you ever address the questionabout constructing a definition of religion that excludes Quakers, and only includes those who make claims such as the ones quoted above?

Because if you meant 'fundies', perhpas you should have said so at the onset. You would probably get less skepticism about your claim, had you posited 'Skeptics cannot be fundies'.

But there are demonstrable overlaps between all possible members of the set 'religious', and all possible members of the set 'skeptics'.

And if one is only interested in cherry picked examples that don't refute their premise, then they run the risk of coming across as more of a True Sophist, than a skeptic...il pas?

 

[Dogdoctor]

That seems like a very extraordinary claim, and I don't care what kind of tingle ran down your spine, or what "voice" in the sky told you he was real, a claim that outrageous is going to need some serious, serious evidence. And in fact, THERE IS NONE.

I think you underestimate the rapture people feel when they believe they are having a religious experience. Likewise you underestimate peoples ability to interpret religious scriptures to imaginatively. What if a person was about to kill themselves and suddenly the only thing that could have stopped them from killing themselves happened. Combine that with going from severe depression to a highly elated state. You can think about it but it is really hard to get past that feeling. There is no way to weigh that and say that was pure chance although from your perspective you have no problem doing that a person who was raised not thinking that way would have difficulty accepting that. If a person has thoughts which are not skeptical by your point of veiw does that make them not a true skeptic? What about when you have thoughts which are not skeptical to others?

 

[El_Spectre]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God - it's just all anecdotal, ranging from biblical texts to personal testimonials. I will stipulate that anecdotal evidence is weak, unreliable and inconclusive - but you cannot deny that it's evidence.

Sorry, but I will deny that it's evidence. I can declare that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhnbs) bought me lunch (pizza, natch) but that's a claim, not evidence.

I'm OK if someone wants to believe, but they don't get to use words like 'evidence' inappropriately.

 

[jmercer]

Sorry, but I will deny that it's evidence. I can declare that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (mhhnbs) bought me lunch (pizza, natch) but that's a claim, not evidence.

I'm OK if someone wants to believe, but they don't get to use words like 'evidence' inappropriately.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, ES, but I must. Anecdotal evidence (which is subjective in essence) is indeed evidence, albeit weak, unreliable, etc. If millions of people claim they experience spiritual rapture and contact God on a subjective level, that's evidence. It's certainly not evidence proving God's existence; it is, however, evidence supportive of their beliefs and claims and therefore cannot simply be dismissed out of hand because it's annoying and/or inconvenient. And simply because there are alternate explanations for their experiences doesn't eliminate the fact that it's still evidence that possibly supports their assertions.

Anyone who throws out anecdotal evidence simply because it's anecdotal is being neither skeptical or scientific. Certainly, as I said, that evidence should be considered weak and open to interpretation; drawing any kind of conclusion from it (other than "something subjective happened") would be speculation of the worst kind for a skeptic to do. Simply dismissing it as evidence without a valid scientific reason to do so would be an error.

Then there are historical documents, such as the Bible, Koran, Torah, Upanishads, and so forth. While the veracity of the information held within those documents is certainly subject to debate, they are all historical evidence concerning the existence of deities - and therefore must be considered as evidence regarding the existence of God(s). Weak, unreliable and inconclusive evidence, yes - but if anyone tries to throw them out as evidence "just because", they run the risk of being labeled non-skeptical.

One simply cannot say there is no evidence of God unless they are willing to arbitrarily ignore widespread testimonials and historical documents. And that, I believe, is most emphatically not good critical thinking or skepticism.

(Remember, please - I'm not asserting there is a God, but that saying there is NO evidence for God's existence is an erroneous statement. )

 

[El_Spectre]

I'm sorry to disagree with you, ES, but I must. Anecdotal evidence (which is subjective in essence) is indeed evidence, albeit weak, unreliable, etc. If millions of people claim they experience spiritual rapture and contact God on a subjective level, that's evidence.

Why? It's nothing more than hearsay. We wouldn't give the same kind of credence to the "I saw the loch ness monster" claims, would we? Unless we are unsubstantiated claims "weak evidence", in which case I guess we concur, but it dilutes the meaning of the word.

On many people believing... I know folks who are waaaaay too into Tolkein. There are many of these people in the world, but their obsession does not count as evidence of Eru Illuvatar (*), y'know?

(*) The Silmarillion is a spiffy book... the creation story is way better than the Adam/Eve stuff

 

[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.

The conclusion, "..such things don't exist..." is, of course logical to you since you find no evidence. What passes as evidence for me wouldn't convince you and I won't try.

You and others are simply saying, "We accept none of your evidence and therefore reject your conclusion." This is perfectly acceptable logic but not dispositive of the argument.

Once again, too much time on my hands.

IIRichard

 

[Beady]

I find it odd that I am debating such simple precepts as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" on a skeptic message board.

It's not so odd. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you continually, almost religiously (ahem!), ignore the companion dictum that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Of course, you have also been fairly consistent in demonstrating your lack of objectivity throughout this thread. Just go to the top of the thread and read your own posts. Look at how many personal opinions you present as indisputable facts, and how many modifiers you apply to things you don't agree with.

As I said before, you appear to be committing the very acts you are decrying in others.

 

[El_Spectre]

You and others are simply saying, "We accept none of your evidence and therefore reject your conclusion." This is perfectly acceptable logic but not dispositive of the argument.

Once again, too much time on my hands.

IIRichard

I don't mean to be a jerk, I really don't... but can you imagine how frustrating it is when y'all redefine 'proof', 'evidence' and 'argument' to fit a (to me) highly unlikely worldview?

It's even more frustrating because I canna argue against it. Ultimately I run up against the "It's a god thang, you wouldn't understand" defense. Argh.

 

[Beady]

Anyone who throws out anecdotal evidence simply because it's anecdotal is being neither skeptical or scientific.

I've been on two juries now, one civil and one criminal case. Probably 90+% of the evidence presented in each was oral testimony, aka anecdotal evidence. The simple fact is, the vast majority of "evidence" we encounter in our daily lives is of the anecdotal variety, from courtroom testimony to neighborhood gossip.

A skeptic sifts and evaluates anecdotal evidence, he doesn't reject it out of hand. The skeptic is shirking his job if he insists on hard data for everything. The vast majority of the human experience is anecdotal in nature. Human experiences such as love, fear, pleasure, and simple daily events can only be expressed as anecdotes. To ignore or reject those anecdotes without due consideration is to ignore or reject the balance of our fellow humans without due consideration.

 

[drkitten]

Why? It's nothing more than hearsay.

So? Hearsay evidence is still evidence. It's usually unacceptable in court, but under some circumstances (where it's the best evidence available or that can reasonably be expected), courts use hearsay as valid evidence.

We wouldn't give the same kind of credence to the "I saw the loch ness monster" claims, would we?

Depends. We accept scientists' unsupported word about the discovery of new species on a fairly regular basis, especially when there's no reliable way of confirming that they did or did not see a new/rare species of butterfly in some obscure corner of the world.

The key thing to evaluate is the "best evidence."

What's the best evidence we could reasonably expect for, say, a rare butterfly? Ideally, a specimen or two -- at the minimum, the report of several reliable witnesses. Anything less than the best evidence can be dismissed as "too weak to matter."

What's the best evidence we could reasonably expect for Nessie? A specimen -- it's not like it's hard to get to Loch Ness, after all, and we know exactly where/how to search. Anything less than the best evidence can be dismissed as "too weak to matter."

And, similarly, what's the best evidence we could reasonably expect for a claim like "God created the heavens and the Earth"? We can't ask for a specimen....

 

[Beth]

One simply cannot say there is no evidence of God unless they are willing to arbitrarily ignore widespread testimonials and historical documents. And that, I believe, is most emphatically not good critical thinking or skepticism.

Not that I disagree with you (I don't), but it seems to me that the same type and caliber of evidence is available for other phenomena. For example, there are plenty of testimonials and historical documents testifying to the efficacy of dowsing or the existence of ESP. Why would you consider such evidence weak but valid for the existence of God but not for the other phenomena? Or am I mistaken about how you regard such evidence for things like ESP or dowsing.

Beth

 

[Beady]

For example, there are plenty of testimonials and historical documents testifying to the efficacy of dowsing or the existence of ESP. Why would you consider such evidence weak but valid for the existence of God but not for the other phenomena?

Because you can objectively test the efficacy of dowsing and ESP. How do you test for the presence of God? How do you, for example, prove that you love your spouse, dream about chocolate every Friday night, or feel excruciating pain? For most things in life, anecdotes are all the evidence there is.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

Re: Re: Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

So you are saying that there is no way the student I spoke about existed? Interesting. Are you saying she lied to me?

Yes. There is no way for someone to go through life without ANY understanding of the regularity of nature, the existence of suffering, or the existence of magical, fictional characters in stories. These are all basic facts that are available to anyone and permits them to draw the rational conclusion - if they are not brainwashed by their parents or suckered into an argument from ignorance.

Is it merely because I disagree with you?

No... but because you have no justification for the nonsense you're saying. There are plenty of people who disagree with me and say reasonable things. Saying that a person in a modern society might not have the information needed to be an atheist is imbecilic.

If that is the case, perhaps it is good that you cannot ignore it.

WTF ? I guess the arrogance comes with being moderator.

 

[Moose]

This is in reply to a derail posted here, which is entirely relevant to this thread.

[derail]
Moose, you do realize, don't you, that according to some people in the Skeptics Can't be Religious thread, this little tale is worthless as evidence?
[/derail]

Yes, I noticed that.

But you know what?

Suppose I were to report to you that on Septembuary 36nd of next year, Charley "Stick Boy" Dowserly was only able to find the gold coin a single time out of ten trials while observing that the test was consistent with random chance and that the odds were 1 in so many.

If you've accepted my statement without having personally observed the test and personally calculated the odds, well guess what? You'll have formed a conclusion based on an anecdote. The fact that I wrote it down doesn't make it any more credible.

Anecdotes are evidence, and every piece of evidence you have not gathered yourself is by its very nature an anecdote.

The credibility lies in the methodology and discipline of the trial, in the faithfulness of the reporting, and in repetition by third parties. Not in some arbitrary designation: "Ye be an anecdote, foul and fetid. I wave my hand at ye".

 

[El_Spectre]

So? Hearsay evidence is still evidence. It's usually unacceptable in court, but under some circumstances (where it's the best evidence available or that can reasonably be expected), courts use hearsay as valid evidence.



Depends. We accept scientists' unsupported word about the discovery of new species on a fairly regular basis, especially when there's no reliable way of confirming that they did or did not see a new/rare species of butterfly in some obscure corner of the world.

The key thing to evaluate is the "best evidence."

What's the best evidence we could reasonably expect for, say, a rare butterfly? Ideally, a specimen or two -- at the minimum, the report of several reliable witnesses. Anything less than the best evidence can be dismissed as "too weak to matter."

What's the best evidence we could reasonably expect for Nessie? A specimen -- it's not like it's hard to get to Loch Ness, after all, and we know exactly where/how to search. Anything less than the best evidence can be dismissed as "too weak to matter."

And, similarly, what's the best evidence we could reasonably expect for a claim like "God created the heavens and the Earth"? We can't ask for a specimen....

I suppose you are right. I don't like or trust this use of the word "evidence", but I don't have a decent counter argument.

 

[Palimpsest]

Because you can objectively test the efficacy of dowsing and ESP. How do you test for the presence of God? How do you, for example, prove that you love your spouse, dream about chocolate every Friday night, or feel excruciating pain? For most things in life, anecdotes are all the evidence there is.

Hang on. Isn't that a bit of a double standard? Why are you asking about testing for the presence of God, and then proving love, dreams or pain? Since none of us are blessed with ESP, we can't know for sure what happens in somebody else's mind, but

(a) You, Beady, presumably feel love, have dreams, and experience pain. Since we are (presumably) of the same species, you can deduce that I have pretty similar experiences.

(b) Also, there's external behavior, brain activity, etc... associated with dreams or pain (and love? Well, that's a vaguer term) that can be used to test for these experiences.

 

[El_Spectre]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

WTF ? I guess the arrogance comes with being moderator.

Nonsense. Plenty of us are arrogant with NO moderation ability