True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Robin]

It's like I said, I have this uncanny power that I can predict the winner of any horse race the day before the race is run with 90% accuracy. For reasons of my own I will never use this power for my or anyone else's benefit and I will never co-operate with any experiments to demonstrate the power.

But I will happily provide a list of all the horse races I have successfully predicted as evidence for my claim.

Now my friend Bazza believes me completely when I say this, he accepts my list as evidence - could Bazza be called a skeptic? After all it is totally unfalsifiable and unverifiable that I have this power and so is beyond the purview of science and skepticism.

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

Then you need a new book.

Or perhaps you do. When I was a kid I had an operation and following the operation I was brought into a large wood panelled office where I was left and wandered around examining the contents including a glass cabinet containing a number of preserved specimens of human organs and a small foetus. When I described this to my parents they laughed and said that I had just that moment woken up from the operation. But I argued I really was there, I remember it clearly and I would have known if it were a dream.

I have often wondered about the explanation - a lucid dream? Was I brought there for some reason undisclosed to my parents and briefly woke up? Was it some kind of out of body experience? Well I will never really know.

So perhaps you would open your book and tell me how I might answer these questions using only the evidence of the experience itself.

Utterly, utterly wrong. If you cannot reasonably expect the verification process to work, then it's not really a verification process in any meaningful sense of the word.

OK, let's look at your examples:

Let's take a somewhat less hypothetical and more scientific question -- does a magnetic monopole exist? (Some theories claim that it can't, some claim that it may or may not, some even claim that they must exist somewhere in the universe.) No one's found one by looking for it yet, but we cannot reasonably expect to. The universe is a very, very large place, and it's entirely unreasonable to believe that we have searched a large enough volume to count as a representative sample.

You have shown that it is unfalsifiable, but is the statement "a magnetic monopole exists" verifiable or unverifiable? Is it beyond the purview of science?

Heck, we can't even verify a statement like "Osama bin Laden exists today" -- and Osama isn't supposed to be infinitely capable of hiding if he so chooses.

So is the statement "Osama bin Laden is alive today" an unverifiable statement? Is it beyond the purview of science?

So what you're really saying is that Osama bin Laden is capable of hiding from us -- but that God lacks this capacity. What an interesting theological theory you have.

Aren't you the one compiling the logical fallacies list? Is it really possible that you believe that this is an accurate representation of my position? What precisely did I say that would lead you to think that? Was it this:

Originally posted by Robin
So if God does nothing, or hides his tracks then science would not be able, in a practical sense, to study it, but clearly if God can have some effect in the physical world then science could study God.

So if I have said that God could hide his tracks does this mean that I think that God could not hide?

What is your definition of straw man again? What an interesting logical theory you have.

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

And again, what is it about this post:

So what you're really saying is that Osama bin Laden is capable of hiding from us -- but that God lacks this capacity. What an interesting theological theory you have.

???

 

[Bri]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

Could not is fine, I agree. However, why would He? Just to please us? Dunno about you, but I seriously doubt that I'm so important to Him that he'd continue to generate miracles just for the benefit of satisfying my doubts.

I have enjoyed your posts, and have found your arguments to be very convincing.

In support of your argument, many theists would point out that there are valid and practical reasons that God might not want to make himself known to us. For example, many religions believe that God wants us to make a conscious choice to do good over bad. If God were to make it known that he exists, that would severely limit our freedom to choose between good and bad. It would be kind of like pointing a gun to our heads.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Both the "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" positions are unprovable, and the "agnostic" position is simply an "I don't know."

The agnostic atheist claims that it is impossible to ever know for certain if a god exists, which indicates that even if a god exists, that god would never be able to prove its existance! This is a very bold claim, but also one that is somewhat contradictory, since the agnostic theist is actually claiming to know about gods while at the same time claiming it impossible to know anything about gods.

At that same time, an agnostic atheist might consider the agnostic position a "cop-out" since the person is not only claiming a lack of belief that a god exists, but also a lack of belief that no god exists. In other words, the agnostic isn't telling us anything about what s/he believes at all. The agnostic admits that s/he doesn't know whether a god exists or not (that it is possible that one exists) and therefore simply refrains from commenting on the topic.

But belief doesn't require proof -- only valid reasons. A belief is simply an opinion, and therefore the agnostic is witholding an opinion under the premise that proof is required in order for a belief to be valid. In order to hold that a skeptic cannot be a theist, one would have to not only buy into the premise that it is invalid to hold an opinion without proof, but that a skeptic must offer no opinion whatsoever if there isn't proof. This would make it equally invalid for a skeptic to be an atheist as well.

Like the agnostic, the agnostic theist admits that s/he doesn't know for certain whether god exists or not, but simply states a belief that god does exist. This is a perfectly reasonable belief -- even for a skeptic -- if s/he has valid reasons for believing it, especially without evidence to the contrary.

-Bri

 

[Robin]

IIn support of your argument, many theists would point out that there are valid and practical reasons that God might not want to make himself known to us. For example, many religions believe that God wants us to make a conscious choice to do good over bad. If God were to make it known that he exists, that would severely limit our freedom to choose between good and bad. It would be kind of like pointing a gun to our heads.

-Bri

God might have valid reasons not to make himself known, but that is irrelevant to the point being made. The fact that God could have an observable effect on our physical reality if he chose makes him verifiable.

But this only shows how the argument is impossible because God is an undefined entity. Most religionists would say that God does want us to believe, and some suggest that we will be severely inconvenienced in the afterlife if we don't. So you have the importance of belief on one hand and the importance on the other hand that we don't know or aren't sure that he exists.

 

[Donn]

Both the "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" positions are unprovable, and the "agnostic" position is simply an "I don't know."

I would go further and say they are just so much word-play. The only metaphor I can think of now is pregnancy and not being half-pregnant.

But belief doesn't require proof -- only valid reasons.

I would say yes - only if those valid reasons exceed the valid reasons against it. If there is really strong argument against it (backed up by good evidence, logic, the whole kaboodle) then it may balance at the point where you must be agnostic, or it may tilt into the zone where you must not believe it.

The mistake I think that people make is to skip lightly along into religion without examining the arguments. Then they compound that error by not realizing that the arguments are on-going and that the balance for and against Theology is constantly shifting.

It's like believing that bees cannot fly because you heard this really strong valid argument once and that's that. You now have faith in that proposal and need never visit it again, thank you very much.

This would make it equally invalid for a skeptic to be an atheist as well.

Would have to agree with you on this.

Like the agnostic, the agnostic theist admits that s/he doesn't know for certain whether god exists or not, but simply states a belief that god does exist. This is a perfectly reasonable belief -- even for a skeptic -- if s/he has valid reasons for believing it, especially without evidence to the contrary.

VS.
Like the agnostic, the agnostic psychic admits that s/he doesn't know for certain whether psi exists or not, but simply states a belief that psi does exist. This is a perfectly reasonable belief -- even for a skeptic -- if s/he has valid reasons for believing it, especially without evidence to the contrary.

que?

 

[Donn]

Re: Re: while (1) {print "Re: "};

Being suspicious, is, as I said, no problem. I agree that skepticism is a verb... but I think the title of skeptic is a bit broader than the one you've painted. I believe it's perfectly possible to nominally believe in a God while still being skeptical about the veracity of one's beliefs. It's called doubt.

Well then, you fit right into my (patented and only correct one - of course) definition of "Sceptic" - you hold a belief but you also hold it up to examination.

I think you need to be very careful about this kind of thinking. Rationalizing something away is not the same thing as coming to a conclusion based on evidence. Rationalization is an excellent tool for theorizing on possible answers; but by itself, it's very risky to come to a conclusion just based on rationalization alone. As you said, the mind has powerful ways of fooling itself; chief among those methods is the desire to rationalize things away that don't fit in with our own preferences and prejudices - pro or con.

Well, I meant "Use Rational means and the toolkit and google and these forums and any other means to establish the best grounds for the truth about the situation that you possiblty can!" - we really need a shorter word

I don't think that the desire to explain something is foolish, the ways we go about it can be. It's damn hard to not jump to conclusions - that's for sure.

 

[rppa]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

God is defined...

What if there is a God but early theologians got the parameters wrong, and those (including atheists) who blindly follow that single definition also have it wrong?

I'm saying that I think there is a common human spiritual experience which I assign the name "God". I see no evidence to connect that to an all-powerful classical "God" of the type who speaks to Noah and gets all pissy and jealous. Even if there was such a God walking around chatting to prophets 3000 years ago, there's no reason to think it's the same "God" people experience now. I see no reason why when exploring the nature of this experience one must first start with 3000 year old definitions of "God". If there's a god, it is whatever it is, not whatever ancient philosophers thought it is.

I have actually proposed a number of experiments in this thread under which a God, if he were to participate, could provide evidence of his existence.

If "he" is a separate being with separate desires. I don't necessary believe that. But I don't necessarily disbelieve it either.

Of course you have plenty of ancient accounts (and some more modern) of miracles, which believers will submit to you as proof. And of course plenty of "true" ghost stories also have a point where somebody says "prove you're real" and there is an unexplaned knocking over or throwing of an object.

Not proof certainly, but science does not require proof.

Scientific hypotheses require falsifiability, and scientific experiments result either in disproof of, or evidence for a hypothesis. God hypotheses are unfalsifiable.

I'll look for your experiment descriptions (this is a godawful long thread), but I suspect that I'll find they are experiments designed to test the existence a god with fairly narrowly defined parameters, such as...

A God with all power in the universe could certainly create some circumstance that would lead me to accept the numinous hypothesis.

Yes, that's a true statement.

You could justifiably accuse me of being vague in my definition of "God". Without a definition, how can one argue for or against existence? Sorry. I'm Unitarian, I'm comfortable with that (no this does not contradict my earlier statement that I'm a self-labelled Christian). I've often said that I would have been burned at the stake in most periods of Christian history for my "Christian" beliefs.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

Well I have no problems that God might have very good reasons for not producing more convincing evidence of his existence, I was only pointing out that God was not 'unverifiable'. Just unverified.

No sarcasm intended, but I'd still love to hear someone define a reasonable way to verify God's existence.

But if you listen to about 99% of Christian preachers you are extremely important to Him.

They don't count - they only think they're God. On a more serious note, though, I don't confuse the question of God with religion because they're not the same.

But you have suggested that He might go part of the way and generate some inconclusive mental event, but will not go the extra couple of yards and create some external corroboration - such as a prophetic vision of sufficient detail as to rule out co-incidence.

That's a good question; the issue is that I have no idea why God (if He exists) does anything at all, especially why he would spend time with a bunch of silly apes like us.

That question has bothered me for a while, and it's one of the things that pushed me toward agnosticism; but it's not evidence of anything. It just raises doubts. (Or should, at any rate.)

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

I have enjoyed your posts, and have found your arguments to be very convincing.

In support of your argument, many theists would point out that there are valid and practical reasons that God might not want to make himself known to us. For example, many religions believe that God wants us to make a conscious choice to do good over bad. If God were to make it known that he exists, that would severely limit our freedom to choose between good and bad. It would be kind of like pointing a gun to our heads.

-Bri

Thanks for bringing that up; it's a valid point as a counter-argument. I just hope this thread doesn't turn into a "does free will exist" thread now!

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

I just hope this thread doesn't turn into a "does free will exist" thread now!

And just who the hell are you, then, to hope anything?

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A New Beginning

sphenisc,

I'd like to suggest that 'theologies' might be a better term than 'religions' to avoid some of the confusion caused by non-God based religions.that God isn't involved essential for proper scientific study?

Thank-you, yes. Sometimes my mind is concentrated elsewhere and I don't notice. But, may I continue to use the word religion for a bit...

If God choses never to repeat a miracle, does this still lie within the magisterium of science, i.e. isn't repeatibility an essential part of the scientific process?

I am saying that, if a miracle occurred, the magisteriums of religion and science would overlap. Beady was saying that they are separate, therefore a sceptic can be religious. I am pointing out that if your religion includes a belief in miracles, then the magisteriums of your religion and science would overlap. In which case, if you are a sceptic, you are not really free to be religious if this means believing in miracles. However, you may be free to a Buddhist or Deist*.

If God choses to intervene miraculously in ALL events in an entirely predictable way is this within the magisterium of science, i.e. isn't a control where it is known that God isn't involved essential for proper scientific study?

As I said, you can be a sceptic and a Deist*.

*By some definitions of "sceptic", even Deism is excluded. For example, some sceptics believe only in those things for which there is evidence. There is no evidence for a Deistic God (by definition). So a sceptic of this type would not be a Deist.

BillyJoe

 

[Beth]

Like the agnostic, the agnostic psychic admits that s/he doesn't know for certain whether psi exists or not, but simply states a belief that psi does exist. This is a perfectly reasonable belief -- even for a skeptic -- if s/he has valid reasons for believing it, especially without evidence to the contrary.

que?

Yes. That seems quite rational and reasonable to me.

Beth

 

[Bri]

The mistake I think that people make is to skip lightly along into religion without examining the arguments. Then they compound that error by not realizing that the arguments are on-going and that the balance for and against Theology is constantly shifting.

Certainly there are plenty of theists who are not skeptics. However, the question of the thread is whether a skeptic can be a theist (actually, can they be a religious theist). A skeptic would always examine the evidence to determine whether it is possible to know whether or not a god exists, and in absence of such evidence would then examine the possible reasons for believing whether or not a god exists and consider the validity of those reasons.

That said, there are many compelling reasons to believe in God (and many reasons not to). These would include being part of a community, having a strong system of ethics/morals, having an explanation for free-will, feeling that your life has a meaning, and many others. There are arguments for and against all of these reasons, but a skeptic could easily see these reasons as valid enough to tip the scales towards a belief in God, especially in the absence of evidence against God.

Like the agnostic, the agnostic psychic admits that s/he doesn't know for certain whether psi exists or not, but simply states a belief that psi does exist. This is a perfectly reasonable belief -- even for a skeptic -- if s/he has valid reasons for believing it, especially without evidence to the contrary.

que?

Not a very good comparison. A psychic is claiming to believe that people have an ability. This ability can be easily tested. In fact, many people who believe they have these abilities are tested all the time and always fail these tests. There is clearly overwhelming evidence against psi.

We have already discussed some reasons that God might not want to be tested. If there were equally compelling reasons why the "real" psychics wouldn't want to be tested, then I would say that a skeptic could have a valid belief in psi. But, since the evidence is overwhelmingly against psi and there is no reason to believe that psi couldn't be tested, I would argue that any reason for belief in psi would be invalid compared with the evidence against it.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

No sarcasm intended, but I'd still love to hear someone define a reasonable way to verify God's existence.

I don't know...what if God offered to create something out of nothing? If some being claiming to be God could do this consistently, that would certainly be evidence enough that there is a God that science would have to change its accepted views of the world (presumably to one that included a god).

That's a good question; the issue is that I have no idea why God (if He exists) does anything at all, especially why he would spend time with a bunch of silly apes like us.

That question has bothered me for a while, and it's one of the things that pushed me toward agnosticism; but it's not evidence of anything. It just raises doubts. (Or should, at any rate.)

Perhaps you underestimate the importance of human life to God. Perhaps you confuse "fallibility" with "imperfection." Many religions don't believe that God expects us to be infallible, only that we strive to be so. That we strive to do good would require us to be able to do otherwise. If true, humans might be the only objects in the universe that have the ability to act outside of determinism, which would make us special indeed (in fact, would make us supernatural, scientifically speaking).

Just a thought, obviously, since it's impossible to know one way or another whether God actually exists, much less exactly how God thinks if he does exist.

-Bri

 

[Beth]

Not a very good comparison. A psychic is claiming to believe that people have an ability. This ability can be easily tested. In fact, many people who believe they have these abilities are tested all the time and always fail these tests. There is clearly overwhelming evidence against psi.

We have already discussed some reasons that God might not want to be tested. If there were equally compelling reasons why the "real" psychics wouldn't want to be tested, then I would say that a skeptic could have a valid belief in psi. But, since the evidence is overwhelmingly against psi and there is no reason to believe that psi couldn't be tested, I would argue that any reason for belief in psi would be invalid compared with the evidence against it.

-Bri

Actually, not all psychic abilities are amenable to testing. For example, consider someone who has experienced visions or dreams about future events that came true. If such experiences occur often enough and are detailed enough to make coincidence or other rational explanations that are typically offered untenable, it would be reasonable for such a person to believe in psychic abilities based on their personal experiences. Yet, because they cannot produce such visions on demand or take snapshots of what they see in their dreams, they would not be able to test their abilities or otherwise provide convincing evidence to others. Such experiences would be anecdotal to other people, just as religious experiences are anecdotal to others but powerfully convincing evidence to those what have had the experience.

If rational explanations for their experiences are lacking (not unconsidered, but rather considered and found inadequate) then it seems to me that psychic agnostic or psychic skeptic would be as valid a stance as theistic agnostic or theistic skeptic would be.

Beth

 

[Bri]

Actually, not all psychic abilities are amenable to testing.

Perhaps not, but the one you described would be. The person could simply write down their dreams in detail, submit them to a third party who dates them and places them in a safe place. Then compare what actually occurs with what is in the dreams. If someone had the ability, their dreams should come true much more often than not. If not, then this is evidence (not necessarily proof, but evidence) that they had no special ability.

Such experiences would be anecdotal to other people, just as religious experiences are anecdotal to others but powerfully convincing evidence to those what have had the experience.

If these anecdotal experiences were compelling enough to give a person a valid reason for believing, then even a skeptic might believe if there is no evidence to the contrary. I would argue that there would likely be evidence to the contrary.

If rational explanations for their experiences are lacking (not unconsidered, but rather considered and found inadequate) then it seems to me that psychic agnostic or psychic skeptic would be as valid a stance as theistic agnostic or theistic skeptic would be.

I agree, but that's a big "if" to overcome.

-Bri

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

And just who the hell are you, then, to hope anything?

I am that I am?

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

I don't know...what if God offered to create something out of nothing? If some being claiming to be God could do this consistently, that would certainly be evidence enough that there is a God that science would have to change its accepted views of the world (presumably to one that included a god).

It would sure go a long way toward that goal... but I can point to a potential example of apparently creating something out of nothing.

So-called "imaginary" particle pairs bubble up out of quantum foam and then cancel each other out. (One's a "posi-particle" and the other one is an "anti-particle". This happens constantly, and -literally - everywhere.

According to Stephen Hawkings - when this happens near the event horizon of a black hole - occasionally one or the other particles will appear on the "inside" of the horizon while the other one will appear "outside". The one "outside" the hole then ceases to be "imaginary", and becomes a real particle. (Or anti-particle, as the case may be.) In other words, apparently something out of nothing.

From there, it's only a fantasy step toward imagining some advanced alien race being able to harness that (or some other similar physics quirk) to create the illusion of creation. Asimov said it best: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Perhaps you underestimate the importance of human life to God. Perhaps you confuse "fallibility" with "imperfection." Many religions don't believe that God expects us to be infallible, only that we strive to be so. That we strive to do good would require us to be able to do otherwise. If true, humans might be the only objects in the universe that have the ability to act outside of determinism, which would make us special indeed (in fact, would make us supernatural, scientifically speaking).

Just a thought, obviously, since it's impossible to know one way or another whether God actually exists, much less exactly how God thinks if he does exist.

-Bri

Possibly... and another good point. I have to say that in the last few days the quality of the posts and the value of the ideas exchanged in this thread have gone way up.