True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Bri]

Hmmm...I think I'm being misrepresented somewhat.

I don't recall having claimed that I could provide evidence for the non-existence of any deity: I can't prove a universal negative, and no-one has defined the god(s) they would like me to prove the absence of anyway.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood the following as meaning that you had evidence that was absolutely overwhelming, near-impossble to refute, and supported by falsifiable observation that the concept of deities is merely a human construct:

So where, then, is the compelling evidence for the existence of any deity? If it exists, it had better be top-notch and abundant, since the evidence supporting the hypothesis - or is it actually theory? - that the concept of deities is merely a human philosophical and cultural construct is, IMHO, absolutely overwhelming, near-impossble to refute and supported by falsifiable observation and theory (think of the Cargo Religion, for instance).

I can agree with much of the rest of your posts, so if that's not what you meant then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

The point I am trying to make, is that the believers have to provide the evidence for the existence of the god they define (claims of the supernatural must be supported by the claimant and all that).

Science deals with facts, not beliefs. Yes, if a theist wanted to prove as a fact that their god exists, the burden of proof would be upon them. Most theists are content with simple belief that their god exists.

If that makes me an an 'un-true skeptic' I can easily live with that.

By this definition, there are no "true skeptics" except maybe an agnostic. Of course, one wonders if there are really any "true agnostics" without a belief one way or the other. I would argue that you are a true skeptic. I would also argue that a theist can equally be a true skeptic.

If I am to carry on the discussion from here, I first need to know what definition(s) of 'god' we are talking about. I was also primarily addressing the Judeo-Christian God-concept, simply because that was the one that was forced upon me in the culture I happened to be born into.

Understood. The Jewish and Christian notions of God are quite different by my understanding. The various Christian sects have different notions of God. Individual groups within each sect has different notions of God. Individuals within each group have different notions of God.

To make matters worse, very few claim to have a clear definition of their God. In fact, some claim that the very nature of God necessarily defies a clear definition. There are some common themes: Most notions of God consider him to be supernatural since he created nature. They consider a being that could have created nature to be quite powerful, certainly powerful enough to violate the laws of nature that he put in place if he so chose. This God is consequential (he affects the natural world, or at the very least judges us after we die).

Is that enough of a definition in order for you to disprove God's existance? Would there ever be enough detail about any notion of a god for you to disprove its existance?

-Bri

 

[NeilC]

OK then maybe the question is: Is it skeptical to believe in god.

And then we can all agree that it isn't.

 

[Bri]

That's amusing and I had a laugh, then I thought, hang-on - isn't this my point in some way? "The establishment of a new god takes time" is the line that got me.

Well...it was a joke after all. But I agree with many of your points, so I'm not surprised that I supported one of them there.

That some notions of God have come about as a result of marketing is undoubtedly true. Many historians would argue that Christianity "caught on" only because the early Christians made the wise decision not to require circumcision. Of course, we can't prove that Christianity wouldn't exist regardless.

Where there is the tiniest splinter of doubt - how can there be belief?

Are you kidding? That's the very definition of "belief." Without doubt it would be "knowledge" not belief. For that matter, name a single thing for which there isn't the tiniest splinter of doubt.

Well, if the invisible Elf provides *stuff* to the believer then I guess (by your lights) it's a valid thing to believe in. God shares much with the invisible Elf.

Sure. Whether I believe in it also would depend on whether I find the reasons for their belief to be compelling. Can a skeptic believe in elves? Perhaps, depending on the definition. Can a skeptic believe in aliens?

And in a way, they are the only source of "morals" to millions of people who cannot think for themselves.

A very thought-provoking post, by the way. A solid system of ethics would be a pretty good reason to believe in a god in my book. In the United States, ours is based on a belief in God, if for no other reason than it assumes that we have free will (and no, I don't want to get into a discussion of free will). So there is a good argument that even the richest and most well-educated nations still fall back to believe in a god to provide a system of ethics.

Does it make it right? I say no, but millions disagree!

A "deeper" question is -- is there a better alternative? But that goes beyond the topic of this thread.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Hi Bri,

I think what happened here is that Kathy is new to the forum and don't know how to use the quote function. The first part of her post is a quote from somebody else (BS Investigator?), which she answers to at the bottom of her post.

At least I think so.

Oh! You may be right (I'll take your word for it because I'm too lazy to go back and see)! Sorry Kathy! In that case, my response was directed at the wrong person.

-Bri

 

[Ashles]

OK then maybe the question is: Is it skeptical to believe in god.

And then we can all agree that it isn't.

Well that's a completely different question to the thread title.

The simple answer to that question is that it isn't sceptical to believe in God.

Whilst also remembering that some perceived experiences can be extremely compelling and indistinguishable from real events.

Many people believe they are honestly analysing their experience sceptically and logically, but are unaware of some possible explanations.

Sleep paralysis is a good example of this, and has caused many people to believe they are being visited by angels/demons/ghosts/aliens etc.

But most visitors to this site would probably be aware of such explanations.

 

[Thomas]

First, I have to admit that I haven't read this entire thread, so I apologize in advance if I'm merely repeating what has already been said.

I think definitions are so much of essence here, and I'll try to show why.

Skeptics by Dictionary.com

A1) One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

A2) One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

A3) Philosophy.

A3a) often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.

A3b) Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).

Well, A1 is a pretty broad definition isn't it? ..but it is perhaps this one that most debaters here adhere to, because choosing A2 should settle the matter for good. A3 is the classical ancient skepticism, based on logic and the borders hereof, a definition which I hardly think is in question here.

Religious by Dictionary.com

B1) Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

B2) Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.

B3) Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

Source: Dictionary.com

According to some of the discussion I've had time to read, B1 is a definition which is possibly not used by the majority of the posters in this thread.
B3 is too far away from the intention of this thread, and that leaves us with B2 if we advocate that religious folks can be skeptics (if we look into the definitions of "religion", then we'll find that B2 can mean a lot).


Can true skeptics be religious? Here are some examples of both sides of the story.
<table border="1">
<tr>
<td>Yes</td><td>No</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>A1+B1(?)
</td><td>A2+B1</td>
</tr>
</table>
I'm unsure about the justification of the "Yes"-side structure presented here. I would very much like to see better constructs for the Yes-argument.

In conclusion:

The answer to whether a religious person can be a skeptic, could be both yes and no. As so often, it all depends on the definitions we use. If we can't agree on the definitions, then we can't agree with eachothers conclusions either. We're simply speaking different languages.
People will always try to make everything one says fit into their own definitions of the words used, if the difference is too big, then the sentence will make little-to-no sense - or even be downright offensive, hence; the person will think that you're outta your good mind.

Sometimes I just throw in the towel and say: "Hey, let's see what the dictionary says then.", and this is probably one of the cases where I would do so. Then again, if the dictionary black-and-white contradicts a given aggrieved party, they will very often try to argue that either the dictionary or the interpretation of it has to be incorrect. That's when the real circus music starts.

Anyway.. I know the question in focus here has many depths. If I had my back against the wall, I would say that you can't believe in supernatural powers, gods or deities and then still expect to receive a grand medal in critical thinking (just because you realized that Bigfoot most likely isn't there).
But on the other hand, I know well that my own definition of a skeptic is in minority, as I go by A3: To me a skeptic is one who is in doubt about everything, and I call the vast majority of the posters on this board "debunkers" in my silent mind because they simply are too sure about too much (especially science and politics), and that doesn't even mean that I believe in any paranormal or supernatural (baloney) phenomenon.

 

[Bri]

Oh, what scientific theory is this? Seems to me that I haven't heard about it. Last time I checked, the concept of free will was something that belonged in the realm of philosophy.

There is little scientific evidence that physics could possibly allow us to make decisions that aren't determined or random. The theories of determinism and quantum mechanics both suggest that we cannot have free will, at least according to the most commonly accepted definitions of free will. Whether there are equally useful definitions of free will (i.e. ones that support our notions of ethics) that are compatible with current scientific theories might be the realm of philosophy.

There have also been scientific studies in the area of psychology and neurology that attempt to explain the fact that most people feel as though they have free will. Some of this evidence has indicated that this feeling might be "hardcoded" into the brain, the theory being that it is a survival mechanism. These types of studies are by no means difinitive proof that we don't have free will, but are scientific evidence that we might not.

So, perhaps to be more accurate, I should have said that the common notions of free will (those that are incompatible with determinism and quantum mechanics) cannot be explained by science, but can be explained by the existance of a god.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

So how can a true skeptic believe in god? - unless he has had a very convincing personal godly experience. And he would question even that.

Exactly. A skeptic would simply question his beliefs. But he would still have beliefs. A strong atheist who is a skeptic would question those beliefs as well.

Belief doesn't require proof.

-Bri

 

[luchog]

For that matter, name a single thing for which there isn't the tiniest splinter of doubt.

Cogito Ergo Sum

Anything beyond that requires some measure of faith.

 

[jmercer]

Good post, Thomas. The definitions are solid ones, IMHO. I'd especially like to point out that A2 uses the word "inclined" instead of some other verb - which I doubt is by accident.

Merriam-Websters Online
Main Entry: 1 in·cline
Pronunciation: in-'klIn
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·clined; in·clin·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French incliner, from Latin inclinare, from in- + clinare to lean -- more at LEAN
intransitive senses
1 : to bend the head or body forward : BOW
2 : to lean, tend, or become drawn toward an opinion or course of conduct
3 : to deviate from a line, direction, or course; specifically : to deviate from the vertical or horizontal
transitive senses

I'd say that definition two is the usage intended... and I agree with the Dictionary.com definition because of that qualifier. The problem I have is with the automatic assumption that anyone who believes in God to any extent cannot be considered skeptical.

From my perspective, to be skeptical all you need is to have doubts and be willing and look for evidence to determine the truth. Whether you believe or disbelieve at the start of the investigation is irrelevant. Any person that doubts their personal judgement concerning religion and objectively seeks proof to resolve their doubts is acting skeptically... no matter what their initial viewpoint is.

Any person that draws a conclusion without evidence and refuses to entertain doubts about their unsupported conclusion is not acting skeptically. I don't care if they are "unquestioning believers" or "unquestioning athiests" or "unquestioning agnostics"... they are not, at that moment, skeptics.

ARGH! Now I wrote this and previewed it, I see all of the posts that were done in the interim...

Good posts, though.

 

[Bri]

Someone can believe in God yet display excellent scepticism in other areas.

All we can say is that a sceptic who believes in a God isn't applying scepticism to that particular area of their life.
But they are no worse a sceptic towards other claims because of this.

But I think it is awfully dismissive to belittle a person and their ability to think critically about issues, just because there is an area of their life where they are not applying these skills.

I am an Atheist - I believe there is no God. But I too have no evidence towards this view point, merely a lack of evidence.

From your comments, it sounds as though you're saying that a belief in a god and a belief that there is no god both indicate that the believer has not applied skills of skepticism in those areas. Under this assumption, the only position that indicates an application of skepticism is an agnostic position (i.e. a lack of belief either way).

Is it possible to apply skepticism to the question of the existance of a god at all, and is it possible for such an application to result in a belief (one way or the other) in the existance of any god?

-Bri

 

[Ashles]

From your comments, it sounds as though you're saying that a belief in a god and a belief that there is no god both indicate that the believer has not applied skills of skepticism in those areas. Under this assumption, the only position that indicates an application of skepticism is an agnostic position (i.e. a lack of belief either way).

I wouldn't have said so before this thread, but a poster near the start argued that logically agnosticism is the only truly sceptical position on the subject of theism, and I can't see how that is incorrect.

Speaking for myself, a complete lack of evidence towards something combined with no real reason to think the thing exists in the first place is adequate for me to form a personal conclusion on the subject.

Scepticism allows you to question something - it doesn't prohibit you from forming an opinion on a subject after having questioned it.

But logically I can't say God doesn't exist any more than the IPU doesn't.

Is it possible to apply skepticism to the question of the existance of a god at all, and is it possible for such an application to result in a belief (one way or the other) in the existance of any god?

-Bri

We can only apply scepticism inasmuch as we can say there is no evidence for god.
But beyond that it is all opinion.
There is no falsifiable position and no testable propositions on the subject.

This is why Randi avoids the whole issue generally (although he is himself an atheist).

But, of course, specific claims (eg divine healing, weeping statues etc.) can be examined sceptically.


Personally I don't quite understand the position of agnosticism. I would have thought that the existence of God is something that would engender opinions one way or the other.
Agnosticism seems to me to be a position held by either sceptics (in the colloquial usage) who are hedging their bets, or people who want to believe in a God but kind of see how it might all seem a bit illogical.
But that's just my opinion.

 

[Thomas]

Good post, Thomas. The definitions are solid ones, IMHO. I'd especially like to point out that A2 uses the word "inclined" instead of some other verb - which I doubt is by accident.

I'd say that definition two is the usage intended... and I agree with the Dictionary.com definition because of that qualifier. The problem I have is with the automatic assumption that anyone who believes in God to any extent cannot be considered skeptical.

Surely they choose the words with care, and "inclined to skepticism in religious matters" is of course far from directly compatible with agnosticism or atheism. In that manner A2 speaks for itself by using a quite vague term, as "inclined". I can agree with that. The dictionary agree with the Yes-side in that manner.

From my perspective, to be skeptical all you need is to have doubts and be willing and look for evidence to determine the truth. Whether you believe or disbelieve at the start of the investigation is irrelevant. Any person that doubts their personal judgement concerning religion and objectively seeks proof to resolve their doubts is acting skeptically... no matter what their initial viewpoint is.

Any person that draws a conclusion without evidence and refuses to entertain doubts about their unsupported conclusion is not acting skeptically. I don't care if they are "unquestioning believers" or "unquestioning athiests" or "unquestioning agnostics"... they are not, at that moment, skeptics.

I'm sure we also can agree that the best possible researcher has no initial viewpoint, or at least tries with all force to suppress any bias at all.

I think everyone who has emotional or economical attachments to any given organization or group is disqualified in any question hereof by default. They are guilty untill proved otherwise, but I also think that they should be given a fair chance to prove their ability to think independantly of their attachments and loyalty.

 

[jmercer]

I'm sure we also can agree that the best possible researcher has no initial viewpoint, or at least tries with all force to suppress any bias at all.

I think everyone who has emotional or economical attachments to any given organization or group is disqualified in any question hereof by default. They are guilty untill proved otherwise, but I also think that they should be given a fair chance to prove their ability to think independantly of their attachments and loyalty. [/B]

I completely agree with your first paragraph... but I think your second is a bit overstated with disqualifications and "guilt by default". To me, everyone - overtly biased or not - should be under the same level of scrutiny, and I try to evaluate each discussion on a per-instance "as-is" basis. (Of course there are people whom I trust more based on previous performance, but I try hard not to let that become a blind assumption on my part.)

From my perspective, we're all biased one way or another over different things, even if we don't realize it. I've found that often these ingrained biases are so specific that they don't appear until the right venue occurs.

That was a great post.

 

[Thomas]

I completely agree with your first paragraph... but I think your second is a bit overstated with disqualifications and "guilt by default". To me, everyone - overtly biased or not - should be under the same level of scrutiny, and I try to evaluate each discussion on a per-instance "as-is" basis. (Of course there are people whom I trust more based on previous performance, but I try hard not to let that become a blind assumption on my part.)

The problem is that sometimes you need expert advice, and then it is of greatest importance that this advisor is completely without bias. The safest choice then is usually to pick a person with minimum affiliations to the given matter in question.

From my perspective, we're all biased one way or another over different things, even if we don't realize it.
I've found that often these ingrained biases are so specific that they don't appear until the right venue occurs.

I'm biased about a lot of things: Nationality, Music, Art.. Etc., but I usually have some fairly justified reasons for my choices. I try to choose with great care, after that I usually become slightly biased.

That was a great post.

If you're talking about your own, then yes, it sure made me think twice about personal and cultural bias - and sorts

 

[Donn]

Personally I don't quite understand the position of agnosticism. I would have thought that the existence of God is something that would engender opinions one way or the other.
Agnosticism seems to me to be a position held by either sceptics (in the colloquial usage) who are hedging their bets, or people who want to believe in a God but kind of see how it might all seem a bit illogical.[/B]

[delurk]
I was answering you when it occurred to me that I have confused myself. You see, I got into this nice description about being all agnostic about "Body Thetans" ($cientology) when I realised that I am actually strongly biased against the whole notion!

Suddenly I lost my grasp on what Agnostic means.

I can grok agnostic in terms of god - that works for me, why not other beliefs?

Maybe it's only because god (and related terms) are so extreme - at the far end of the scale (beyond beyond, so to speak) - that we really have to face the fact that we just don't have any facts; either way.
[/delurk]

This damn thread... I'm like a moth:
"Ooooh look a bright shiny!"
VrVrVrZZZzz - KA-DONK!
"Ouch!"

"Oooh look a bright shiny....."

 

[jmercer]

This damn thread... I'm like a moth:
"Ooooh look a bright shiny!"
VrVrVrZZZzz - KA-DONK!
"Ouch!"

"Oooh look a bright shiny....."

Dammit, I was just thinking how I've become OCD on checking in on this thread!

 

[Beth]

I'm sure we also can agree that the best possible researcher has no initial viewpoint, or at least tries with all force to suppress any bias at all.

While it might appear at first glance that the best possible researcher has no initial viewpoint, realistically the only researcher without an initial viewpoint is either dead or completely ignorant of the subject they are researching - either way, not the best possible choice for a researcher. Even if you go with an ignorant researcher over a dead one, they will acquire biases while they are acquiring information about the subject at hand. Thus, I think the best we can realistically achieve is identify potential biases to the greatest extent possible and choose methodologies that will minimize any impact those biases might have.

Beth

 

[Bri]

OK then maybe the question is: Is it skeptical to believe in god.

And then we can all agree that it isn't.

Only if it's equally "unskeptical" to believe that there is no god.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

The simple answer to that question is that it isn't sceptical to believe in God.

How about to believe that there are no gods?

-Bri