True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Moose]

1) White waves (also called freak waves)

Are these the same phenomenon as rogue waves?

 

[Mercutio]

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.

I would not want it to be "a god thang"...rather, it is quite clearly "a human thang"--part of the way we process information, the way we learn, the way we are socialized.

We learn. It is what we, as organisms, do in response to the pressures of our environments. Some of us learn to be skeptics. Some learn to be religious. Some learn first one, then the other (and it can go either direction).

I think it is in our collective best interest to understand how people learn, and to do our best to arrange things such that people learn the truth rather than lies. I do not think it furthers this goal to blame people for not learning the same things we do--even if we are right and they are wrong, and (and this is important) demonstrably so.

Suppose it is the case that people cannot be both skeptical and religious; so what? What is our next step? If we assume that their thinking processes are somehow different from ours, we are at a loss as to how to proceed. If, however, we examine their environment and ours, and see (and we do see) that they have learned from their communities as we have learned from ours...now we have something to go on. Now we have a justification to fight the Kansas school board, instead of simply shrugging and saying "oh, they'll get it from the mass media--after all, no one can escape the truth when exposed to it on the Discovery Channel..." We know that it is entirely possible for intelligent, skeptical people to disagree on politics--why is it so incredibly difficult to believe that they disagree on science and religion? If "the information is out there", and that is the full story, our politics forum should be a shining example of lockstep agreement. It is not.

It is not "a god thang". It is very much "a human thang." And it is in our best interest to understand that.

 

[Moose]

Well said, if we're ever in the same town, I owe you a beer

Make it a cream soda (and I know just the place) if we're both ever in Moncton, NB, and you've got a deal.

 

[Mercutio]

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

My father has a great T-Shirt... in HUGE letters it says "I Apologize", the in tiny letters: "I'm sorry I was right"

Actually, it is not my own claim.

 

[El_Spectre]

It is not "a god thang". It is very much "a human thang." And it is in our best interest to understand that.

What I meant is this: Most everything is OK to think about and debate rationally, except religion. At some point religious people just say "Well, I believe..." and their opinion somehow is unimpeachable.

Well... no. Not when it affects others. Sorry. No one gets a get out of jail free card from me.

That said, compassion is important, and I'm not that much of a hardass... my best friend is christian, so go figure.

 

[Robin]

This is the same reason I'm an atheist, BTW. The evidence simply doesn't meet my threshold. Should sufficient evidence come to light, however, (or fail to do so), I won't move the evidence bar to suit my expectations.

This is what it means to be a skeptic. [/B]

But by this everyone is a skeptic. After all everybody has a threshold. Someone might hand over large sums of money to Sylvia Browne for psychic reading but might not hand over their bank account details to a scam e-mailer.

I would rather not have labels like 'skeptic' but I would say that the test is if you know why you believe something. So for example if you read a newspaper report that George Bush had served a plastic turkey to his troops you might believe it if your didn't like Bush and disbelieve it if you liked him. So a good test would be if you hated Bush but your BS detector went off anyway.

So if I see an article that says that speed cameras increase road fatalities I might think initially that it was right because I am still stinging over that speed ticket. But I would then say - how do they know? And ultimately I find that the claim is the result of bad mathematics.

Similarly when I hear the debate about long term unemployment, the conservatives say that it is caused by work shyness and the welfare lobby say it is caused by scarcity of jobs. In fact they are both reading the same set of data and their interpretation is based on what they want to be true. Initially I also think that scarcity is the cause, but I also know that this is influenced by my political leanings. So I go to the data and find, surprise surprise that both factors influence long term unemployment (along with a lot of others). And that you can even measure the relative influences of each factor.

So with religion there is a whole host of motives for believing and disbelieving that have nothing to do with evidence. On the one hand there is the feeling we have that people shouldn't be able to get away with bad things. There is the desire for a friend in times of trouble. On the other hand I might have had a bad experience with religion and was turned off it. I might dislike the BS political agenda pushed by the major religions.

Knowing all these things about myself will allow me to discount it and get to the real evidence and to be able to judge it properly.

So my first rule for being skeptical is to abandon any happy notions that you are in any way a rational being. Accept your irrationalities and factor them in to your thinking. Always have the first premise 'But I could be wrong'. And then start looking at the evidence.

 

[Mercutio]

What I meant is this: Most everything is OK to think about and debate rationally, except religion. At some point religious people just say "Well, I believe..." and their opinion somehow is unimpeachable.

Well... no. Not when it affects others. Sorry. No one gets a get out of jail free card from me.

That said, compassion is important, and I'm not that much of a hardass... my best friend is christian, so go figure.

Hey, my last argument on this topic was with my best friend, who is religious.

I agree--no "get out of jail free" card. But that's because it is all human behavior.

Ok, I was gonna go on here, but it looks like we agree, so I'll save the keystrokes.

 

[jmercer]

Are these the same phenomenon as rogue waves?

Yes. They were considered just sailors tales for centuries, and they've only been documented recently. I knew "freak waves" wasn't right - I meant rogue, of course.

"White" waves is the other name I've heard for them. Dunno why they call them that...

 

[Moose]

But by this everyone is a skeptic. After all everybody has a threshold. Someone might hand over large sums of money to Sylvia Browne for psychic reading but might not hand over their bank account details to a scam e-mailer.

Well, yes and no.

In a way, yes, the label skeptic is merely that, a label, with all the limitations and inaccuracies inherent in human speech. Real life has a way of preventing us from pigeon-holing each other too neatly. Life just isn't that convenient.

And then again, no, not everybody is a skeptic. I'd said before that what makes me a skeptic is that I will resist letting myself move the goalposts, my threshold of evidence, no matter how much I may dislike or desire where the evidence appears to be leading me.

We need only look at the Challenge archives to see plenty of examples of people desperately moving the goalposts; offering excuse after excuse in increasingly weak attempts to keep their pet fantasies alive and intact.

How often have we heard the words "and nothing you can say will convince me of that"? How often have people figuratively drowned clinging to their capsized leaky notions?

 

[Moose]

"White" waves is the other name I've heard for them. Dunno why they call them that...

Heh, I know I'd pale as white as a sheet if I ever saw one. I'm moderately hydrophobic in heavy seas.

 

[Mercutio]

And then again, no, not everybody is a skeptic. I'd said before that what makes me a skeptic is that I will resist letting myself move the goalposts, my threshold of evidence, no matter how much I may dislike or desire where the evidence appears to be leading me.

We need only look at the Challenge archives to see plenty of examples of people desperately moving the goalposts; offering excuse after excuse in increasingly weak attempts to keep their pet fantasies alive and intact.

How often have we heard the words "and nothing you can say will convince me of that"? How often have people figuratively drowned clinging to their capsized leaky notions?

There is a world of difference between my student, who had never been properly exposed to the evidence for natural selection (but who, when given the chance, eagerly took in the information) and some un-named individual *cough*Iacchus*cough* who has been shown again and again where his ideas run counter to both logic and evidence, but who chooses to wear blinders and discard anything that does not conform to his fantasy. If the OP had specified the latter, I doubt this thread would have lasted 4 pages.

 

[Pragmatist]

I'm going to attempt to present something which I think is usually overlooked in this kind of discussion, and which I believe is important.

Before I start, let me put my cards on the table and make my own position clear. I am a Buddhist. I don't believe in any god(s). But Buddhism to me is not just a "philosophy" as it is often presented. In fact I think it's rather wussy to try to "excuse" it as just a philosophy when it is fairly and squarely a religion. But in order to clarify what I mean, I think it's important to take a deeper look at what religion is - or at least what it is to some people - like me for example.

What I find disturbing about how these discussions tend to proceed on here, is that there seems to be an automatic assumption that religion requires belief in a deity (I don't believe that is true) and also that "religion" can be quite conveniently dismissed solely by considering an archaic Judeo-Christian model, and in particular by reference to the actions of particular churches. If religion is solely about belief in a god and the actions of say the Catholic church (i.e. the inquisition) or similar religious "fundamentalism" then of course it can be quite conveniently dismissed by simply recounting the lies, illogic and atrocities of those adherents. But I think this is something of a straw man argument.

To me religion is an exploration of a particular set of mental states (some others might say "state of being" rather than "mental states"). Those states being characterised by the fact that they are not logical or rational or even meaningful within a framework of rationalism. The immediate reaction of many people is to dismiss them. If it's not logical or rational etc., then it must be bad. But I would argue that that is a non-sequitur. It is of course true that irrationality is bad within a rational framework - but outside of such a framework, why is irrationality necessarily bad?

It's very hard to describe what I am actually referring to - and one of the reasons why is because language is a rational instrument - it simply doesn't work within the domain I am referring to, because nothing that we can describe, think of, name, label etc., actually is part of that domain. That domain contains the things that are unknowable, unthinkable, indescribable etc. Some people would immediately say, "Yes! You mean God!" - and I would answer, no, I don't mean god - because "god" is just another label from the rational conceptual domain which is being misapplied.

I'm reminded of a technique used by Alfred Korzybski. He used to ask students to find the ultimate definition of things. He would start with something like a chair and ask students to define what it was in some ultimate sense. They would start by saying, "It's made of wood"... some time later they would reach the state of "It's made of atoms"... and so on. But eventually they would reach a point where they simply hit rock bottom and ran out of concepts (or would start to argue in circles) - he would bring them to the realisation that there was a limit to words, concepts and even thought - they would be forced to admit that the ultimate nature of things was beyond rationality and was "the unspeakable". Note, there is a big difference between "the unknown" and "the unspeakable" - because the unspeakable by definition cannot ever be known because it lies beyond the reach of rational thought and all knowledge is based on the same rationality and conceptual basis as language and thought - the unknown of course is potentially knowable.

So what I'm getting at, is that there is a domain (for want of a better word) where our normal thought processes simply don't apply. That state cannot be thought out, argued, described, reasoned or anything else - but it can be experienced. And it is the exploration of that state that I personally call "religion".

Now, because this state is not amenable to rational processes, it does not lie within the scope of concepts such as "truth" or "falsity". A person who claims that "religion is truth" is to my mind, not practicing religion - and probably has no idea of what religion is really all about. Similarly if someone says, "I'm a skeptic, explain religion" - then they are missing the point - religion (in my definition) cannot possibly be described. But there are many ways to "get into" the state I am talking about - and I for one believe that pure faith is one legitimate way (it's not the way I personally choose, but I don't fault anyone else's choice of that method). But by pure faith I don't mean making ridiculous claims about god, I mean actually giving oneself unreservedly into that state beyond description. Of course because it's indescribable some people may simply say "giving oneself to god" for want of a better label - but ultimately the label is meaningless, it's the actual practice that counts - and that is not amenable to any sort of description.

So, if someone says to me, "You can't be religious and a skeptic", I say ********! Of course I can. I apply skepticism in the areas where it applicable, to rational thought, to analysis of describable claims etc. But the other domain is simply alien to that and it doesn't even begin to apply. Skepticism is a concept which is has no validity whatsoever in the domain of "the unspeakable" - that is only to be experienced, not analysed. And as such, any claim that one should be some sort of "pure" or "true" skeptic and subject every experience in life to a limited rational concept set, is really to deny oneself half of the experience of living. To use a rather bad analogy it's like saying that one should not appreciate art or beauty and instead should simply rationally dissect any such experience.

Now, as an aside, science is often held up as the pinnacle of rationalism and skepticism/critical thinking. And it is. But in reality many of the greatest scientists have formulated their initial ideas on a somewhat less than rational basis. There have been instances of scientists who say they have been "inspired" by something beyond simple logic. Their achievement has been to develop extensions to the rational framework that can utilise these inspirations that came from outside of it. To give an example (because I just know someone will demand an example! ) how about Kekule and his dream of an Ourobouros which led to the idea of the structure of Benzene? Or how about Michael Faraday? A profoundly religious man who also went to great lengths to expose "paranormal" charlatanism, and contributed greatly to the advance of science.

So what I am saying is that skepticism/critical thinking/science and the kind of state that I describe as "religious" are not antipathetic - they are complementary. And I think to deny one side of human experience for the sake of "pure" or "true skepticism" is akin to the kind of thinking we tend to associate with "religious fundamentalism". That kind of thinking doesn't lead to more rationality in my opinion, but rather the opposite. It leads to dogma.

Now, on the other hand, I agree with the majority of posters here - we shouldn't accept ridiculous "religious" claims. If someone asserts that god exists then let them show the evidence - if they can't then it's just another false claim. But at the same time if someone claims that all religion and religious experience is useless/undesirable etc., then that is also a claim - let them show the evidence that that is really the case. If we accept such a claim as being automatically true just because it happens to meet certain prejudices or only certain viewpoints of what constitutes "religion", then that claim is just as facile and ridiculous as the claim that "god exists".

We can't really know anybody else's true beliefs. We can only make assumptions and inferences as to them based on how those people conduct themselves. And whilst we may often be correct, we can never know for sure. All we can do is to actually test those specific claims that are testable. None of us has the right to dictate belief systems to others - and if someone does - how on earth do any of us know that the person doing the dictating really believes what (s)he says (s)he does? My skepticism tells me that I should be skeptical of accepting what people claim their beliefs are because they could be lying to me (not to mention themselves!). At the same time, since there is no absolute way I can test what another person believes, common sense tells me that I should leave well alone - unless their actions are manifestly at odds with their professed belief, in which case I reserve the right to question, probe and/or express my own belief that they are being less than honest about their beliefs. But, at the end of the day, it is not for me to dictate to anyone what they should or should not believe. And especially not if it is not relevant to the issue at hand, and if it doesn't cause any harm/problem to others.

So for that reason you will see me happily lay into someone who comes on here and says something like, "quantum mechanics proves....", or "I have detected ghosts...". I don't do it to people who say, "I believe in god" - even though I personally don't believe in a god. Why? Simple. The former are not only claims, they're potentially harmful, they may mislead others into believing something that isn't true, and into taking actions based on that belief that they wouldn't have taken if they knew it to be false. The latter however is harmless. The person doesn't assert that *I* should believe in god. Their words are not likely to make me jump up and start announcing something false as being true. So the best thing to do is to leave well alone - and also to show some respect - because I am not omniscient and maybe that person has reasons that I wouldn't even begin to understand. In the same way, I don't attack someone who professes a belief in invisible pink unicorns - but I will challenge someone who claims to have one at the bottom of their garden!

We are inundated by frauds, liars and stupidity from all quarters. Those are the people who need setting straight. What we don't need is to mould all skeptics into some dogmatic, fundamentalist idea of "truth" and "purity" - that is a very dangerous road to take.

 

[jmercer]

Prag, this has to be the best post on the subject that I've ever read.

Thank you!

 

[BS Investigator]

Pragmatist, good post. You should have made your own thread for all the hard work and thought you put into that.

I am no way saying that skeptics should not have spiritual feelings and experiences. I hope they do. I do. What I am saying is that you cannot believe that these major religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam are "true" or "real" and still be a real skeptic.

Religious claims are the most important and extraordinary of all human claims. Therefore they should be subjected -- if you believe in skepticism, critical thinking and the scientific method -- to the most extraordinary standards of evidence.

Those "skeptics" who know that there is zero valid evidence for religion, but choose to turn off their brain for that one thing, those are the people I am talking about. People who should know better.

Any skeptic, for example, who believes in an afterlife, to me is no skeptic at all. That is the most extraordinary claim possible, and there is not one shred of evidence to support it. Can we all agree on that?

 

[Dogdoctor]

Pragmatist your apeal to us that there exists something which cannot be measured or tested other than on a personal level which you name religion is in my mind very similar to a person saying they have experienced god and if you look you will too. However unlike BS Investigator I think such claims have little importance. The only "religions" of importance are those which take things a step further and affect us in real life (as opposed to disturbing those who are fanatically against such thoughts.) I do agree that you can be religious and yet logical in all of the aspects of your life which have an effect us in real life.

 

[El_Spectre]

Pragmatist I can't say I agree 100% with you, but that was quite impressive.

 

[Robin]

We are inundated by frauds, liars and stupidity from all quarters. Those are the people who need setting straight. What we don't need is to mould all skeptics into some dogmatic, fundamentalist idea of "truth" and "purity" - that is a very dangerous road to take.

I agree with the others, good post. It ties in with a lot of what I have said in the "Is religion slowing us down".

But I am also in agreement with BS Investigator's reply.

We don't need to get dogmatic and fundamentalist, but let's not give away the farm either.

 

[Beady]

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?

You caught me.

Seriously, "proof" should probably be exiled to the mathematical/geometrical realm. My use of it, above, was rather sloppy. Read "evidence" wherever I say "proof."

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.

Presumably, if you want to be presumptive. That's usually considered bad manners, and can sometimes be dangerous.

Dreams and brain activity? Pain and behavior? How many EEG charts have you examined to verify someone's dreams? Even then, those brainwaves can tell you that someone's dreaming, but you have to take their word for what they were dreaming about. If someone tells you they have a mild toothache, how do you know they're telling the truth? They're all anecdotes, and many times you have to act on those anecdotes whether you believe them to be true and accurate, or not.

And love? If someone sets out to test whether you love them, they probably don't deserve that love.

See Moose's example. It's rather extraordinary, and therefore "requires" extraordinary evidence. Has anyone here sought that evidence? Has anyone here refused to believe his anecdote because the extraordinary evidence (indeed, any evidence at all) is lacking?

What evidence is there that anyone has ever taken the JREF challenge? We generally accept these test accounts because we trust the people who write them up, but they are still second-hand, hearsay, and anecdotal. Should we discard them?

As I've said, most of life is anecdotal in nature. Yes, you can reduce someone's biography to facts and figures, but the result isn't even a decent obituary. You'd be able to discern absolutely nothing about the human being behind those facts and figures.

 

[Beady]

Any skeptic, for example, who believes in an afterlife, to me is no skeptic at all. That is the most extraordinary claim possible, and there is not one shred of evidence to support it. Can we all agree on that?

So, do you have the gumption to tell Martin Gardner to his face that, in your humble opinion, he's not a real skeptic? Can I watch?

*Why* can't a skeptic believe in something for which there is no evidence? "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." If there's no evidence of absence, then why not believe in it?

And, strictly speaking, evidence does exist. Completely anecdotal, and most of us here don't give it much credence, but evidence does exist. So your argument in favor of disbelief is based on a demonstrable fallacy.

 

[crimresearch]

Pragmatist, good post. You should have made your own thread for all the hard work and thought you put into that.

I am no way saying that skeptics should not have spiritual feelings and experiences. I hope they do. I do. What I am saying is that you cannot believe that these major religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam are "true" or "real" and still be a real skeptic.

Religious claims are the most important and extraordinary of all human claims. Therefore they should be subjected -- if you believe in skepticism, critical thinking and the scientific method -- to the most extraordinary standards of evidence.

Those "skeptics" who know that there is zero valid evidence for religion, but choose to turn off their brain for that one thing, those are the people I am talking about. People who should know better.

Any skeptic, for example, who believes in an afterlife, to me is no skeptic at all. That is the most extraordinary claim possible, and there is not one shred of evidence to support it. Can we all agree on that?

Still cherry picking and tap dancing around inconvenient contradictions, I see.

Oh, and BTW...you misspelled 'Instigator'....there is no 'v' or 'e' in it.