True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Bri]

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 like your take on this, but don't understand your conclusion exactly. The definitions you use that indicate that "no" (you cannot be a skeptic and be religious) don't seem to indicate that to me:

A2) One inclined to skepticism (having doubt or questions) in religious matters.

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

I agree that (B1) is likely what the original poster meant by "religious" (probably meant "believes in a god" which is essentially a theist).

So why can't someone be inclined to skepticism (i.e. doubt) concerning the existance of a god and still believe in that god? Many theists have some questions and even doubt about the existance of the god they believe in.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Cogito Ergo Sum

Anything beyond that requires some measure of faith.

There is one thing about which I haven't even a sliver of doubt. That pink thing in your avatar is NOT a bunny! Nice moose head though.

Descartes spoke French, so the original statement was "Je pense, donc je suis" (I am thinking, therefore I exist) according to Wikipedia. Even that requires a modicum of faith.

-Bri

 

[Thomas]

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

I actually tried to rephrase that a couple of times when I wrote it to avoid a "..but realistically!" ..I see I failed

However, a chosen methology used today is the use of independant researchers and experts in matters of review and judgement. If you want to question the quality of product X made by company A, then you're not gonna get much use of a judgement sponsored or made by the producing company staff, and that's one of the cases where indedendant review is usefull. Hereby, the chosen method often becomes to disqualify non-independant researchers and experts if independant review is a possibility.

This is not really in disagreement with your post, but rather a justified expansion on how things are right now, in contrast to how they should be.

I have to run now all, later.

 

[Beth]

I actually tried to rephrase that a couple of times when I wrote it to avoid a "..but realistically!" ..I see I failed

Sorry. Didn't mean to step on your toes there. Certainly, it's best to reduce/eliminate bias to the greatest extent possible. That's what scientific methodology is all about. But I think it's a serious mistake to believe that you can successfully eliminate all bias.

 

[Bri]

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.

So the only skeptical opinion is not to have one?

According to your reasoning, the only belief or opinion a "true" skeptic may hold is one that can be proven with certainty, which ironically makes it a "fact" rather than a "belief" or "opinion." Therefore, if you form an opinion or belief on a subject -- any subject -- after having questioned it, then you can no longer be a skeptic. Therefore, anyone with an opinion or belief of any kind is not a true skeptic.

Of course, we know that there are no actual facts that can be proven with certainty, therefore this "true" skeptic of which you speak doesn't actually exist.

So, perhaps the definition of skeptic you're using to come to this conclusion is far too restrictive. Oh, how about this one:

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

If you believe that statement, then you just answered your own question.

A skeptic is simply one who questions, and the result of that questioning can indeed be a belief or opinion without affecting the fact that the person is a skeptic. A non-skeptic is one who doesn't question at all. The vigor of the questioning might determine to what degree you are a skeptic, but belief or opinion does not prevent you from being a skeptic.

-Bri

 

[jmercer]

A skeptic is simply one who questions, and the result of that questioning can indeed be a belief or opinion without affecting the fact that the person is a skeptic. A non-skeptic is one who doesn't question at all. The vigor of the questioning might determine to what degree you are a skeptic, but belief or opinion does not prevent you from being a skeptic.

-Bri

Well said, but I've come to expect that from you.

One quibble, if I may; the result of questioning may lead to insufficient information to base an opinion on; should someone form an opinion regardless of that, they are also not being skeptical.

Like I said, that's really just a quibble, and your post was excellent.

 

[Bri]

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

To confuse matters worse, many agnostics consider themselves to be "weak atheists" and your belief (that there are no gods) would be "strong atheism." Technically, they are correct as the word "atheist" simply means "not theist" which would also include a lack of belief one way or the other.

Is Randi a weak or a strong atheist?

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.

Many agnostics consider it wrong for someone to hold a belief one way or the other without proof, or at least strong evidence for one side over the other. Most actually consider themselves to be atheist (as described above) which would indicate perhaps that they are concerned about holding a belief based on "faith" (belief without proof), such as the belief that there are no gods.

-Bri

 

[Ashles]

Of course, we know that there are no actual facts that can be proven with certainty, therefore this "true" skeptic of which you speak doesn't actually exist.

Um yes, that's what I've been saying. Did you not read my post to Splossy where I said:

As has been explained several times in the thread - there is no such thing as a "true sceptic".

A skeptic is simply one who questions, and the result of that questioning can indeed be a belief or opinion without affecting the fact that the person is a skeptic. A non-skeptic is one who doesn't question at all. The vigor of the questioning might determine to what degree you are a skeptic, but belief or opinion does not prevent you from being a skeptic.

-Bri

Yes. That is exactly what I have been saying.

The OP suggests a mythical sceptic who questions everything without exception. As I have been saying that person does not exist. (Just as a total non-sceptic does not exist - everyone questions some claims)

 

[Bri]

Well said, but I've come to expect that from you.

One quibble, if I may; the result of questioning may lead to insufficient information to base an opinion on; should someone form an opinion regardless of that, they are also not being skeptical.

Like I said, that's really just a quibble, and your post was excellent.

Excellent point, and one that I hadn't considered fully until you mentioned it! I'm not sure that it is a quibble at all. In fact, it seems to be the whole crux of the question!

The fact is that "sufficient information on which to base an opinion" isn't very well-defined. Isn't what constitutes "sufficient information" entirely up to the believer? Does "sufficient information" mean "overwhelming evidence" or "proof" or just "more evidence one way or the other" (and if so, how much more)? Or does it just mean anything other than "no information at all?" What is the threshold of "sufficient information" that one must have in order to form a "valid" opinion?

I'm not sure that I agree with your assertion that if one forms an opinion without "sufficient information" that would necessarily mean that they aren't being skeptical. One could thouroughly examine all the evidence, and in the absence of "sufficient information" to contitute proof, come to the conclusion that there is little or no evidence to claim knowledge one way or the other, but still form an opinion. An opinion isn't fact, it's simply an opinion.

Can't there always be a valid reason for finding one way just the least bit more enticing than the other?

So the question becomes is it ever valid (or even possible) to hold "no opinion" on a subject about which one has any information at all?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Um yes, that's what I've been saying. Did you not read my post to Splossy where I said: As has been explained several times in the thread - there is no such thing as a "true sceptic".

I would consider anyone who questions to be a "true skeptic," rather than stating that there are no true skeptics. Your definition of "true skeptic" is closer to "perfect skeptic" and I would agree that nobody is perfect.

The OP suggests a mythical sceptic who questions everything without exception.

I think the OP is mainly concerned with whether someone can "truly" question God and still believe in God. I think they can.

If that's what you're saying, then I agree with you and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

-Bri

 

[BS Investigator]

Belief doesn't require proof.

-Bri

Belief in extraordinary claims requires EVIDENCE. Religions provide zero valid evidence for their outlandish claims, therefore a skeptic should not "believe" those claims.

Period.

All the rest of this song and dance is skirting the main issue.

BTW, Donn, I applaud you for having the continued patience to deal with this thread. I had to take a break.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Back onto topic…

BS’s basic point was.. a “normal” sceptic who applies critical thinking at all times should reject the notion of God as espoused by the popular religions.

I KNOW he just said God..

I KNOW he said “true” sceptic…

But the general thread was if you apply normal sceptical thinking the idea of God is ridiculous.. if you still adhere to it then you are being Non-sceptical !

 

[Bri]

Belief in extraordinary claims requires EVIDENCE. Religions provide zero valid evidence for their outlandish claims, therefore a skeptic should not "believe" those claims.

An extraordinary claim such as knowing for a fact that it is impossible for a god to exist when nobody can possibly know that?

So, a skeptic cannot be a strong atheist?

No, proof requires evidence. Belief requires reasons that are valid to the believer. Skepticism requires questioning one's beliefs.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

BS’s basic point was.. a “normal” sceptic who applies critical thinking at all times should reject the notion of God as espoused by the popular religions.

Exactly which notion of God is that again?

But the general thread was if you apply normal sceptical thinking the idea of God is ridiculous.. if you still adhere to it then you are being Non-sceptical !

Those skeptics who believe in God would likely disagree with you. Those strong atheists who believe that it is impossible for any god to exist would also disagree with you.

-Bri

edited typo

 

[Robin]

An extraordinary claim such as knowing for a fact that it is impossible for a god to exist when nobody can possibly know that?

But do you know anybody who claims this? If anybody did claim this I would definitely ask for evidence. I have never heard of anybody holding this position.

No, proof requires evidence. Belief requires reasons that are valid to the believer. Skepticism requires questioning one's beliefs.

I don't think proof has anything to do with it.

To me it is the definition of skepticism that you require evidence for belief. (Although naturally it impractical to apply this in every case).

Someone who doesn't require evidence for a belief is being unskeptical.

 

[BS Investigator]

An extraordinary claim such as knowing for a fact that it is impossible for a god to exist when nobody can possibly know that?

That's right. That would not be skeptical. One must always allow for the possibility of "God" or "Dragons" or "Easter Bunnies," because we cannot prove them to be 100% false.

So, a skeptic cannot be a strong atheist?
-Bri

I agree with you. Agnostic would be the more correct term, imo.

 

[Robin]

Those strong atheists who believe that it is impossible for any god to exist would also disagree with you.

Those strong atheists? Forget God, I am skeptical about the existence of strong atheists. Do you have any examples?

 

[Bri]

But do you know anybody who claims this? If anybody did claim this I would definitely ask for evidence. I have never heard of anybody holding this position.

Many atheists hold this position. It's called "strong atheism." The "other" non-theist position is one of agnosticism, which is not a belief at all, but rather a lack of a belief one way or the other about gods.

I don't think proof has anything to do with it.

To me it is the definition of skepticism that you require evidence for belief. (Although naturally it impractical to apply this in every case).

Someone who doesn't require evidence for a belief is being unskeptical.

It is impractical to apply this in the case of anything that is unfalsifiable. You cannot provide evidence that there are no pixies, elves, or faeries. Does this mean that you cannot believe them to not exist if you're a skeptic?

How about aliens? Is it OK to believe that there might be aliens in the universe if you're a skeptic? Is there any evidence of that?

To claim actual knowledge of something is different from claiming a belief or an opinion. A claim of knowledge requires overwhelming evidence; a belief or opinion requires only valid reasons.

-Bri

 

[BS Investigator]

It is impractical to apply this in the case of anything that is unfalsifiable. You cannot provide evidence that there are no pixies, elves, or faeries. Does this mean that you cannot believe them to not exist if you're a skeptic?

How about aliens? Is it OK to believe that there might be aliens in the universe if you're a skeptic? Is there any evidence of that?

-Bri

The chances of Santa Claus or elves or "God" or tooth fairies being real is extremely, extremely small. We have never seen any solid evidence at all for such things.

Aliens? Other intelligent life in the universe. Well we know FOR CERTAIN that intelligent life does exist in the universe, because we are it! Therefore, we have evidence for the phenomenon of intelligent life. We also know that organic molecules and the building blocks of life are easily produced everywhere in the universe, and that many stars have planets orbiting them.

So it is much more logical to believe in the possiblity of aliens over Easter Bunnies or "Gods".

 

[Bri]

I agree with you. Agnostic would be the more correct term, imo.

The only "true skeptic" is an agnostic then (one who holds no belief at all)? The position of an agnostic is that if they cannot know something, then they must withold belief either way. Oddly, every belief and opinion in the world concerns something that cannot be known (otherwise it's not a "belief" or "opinion" but a "fact.") So by your reasoning, anyone who holds a belief or opinion cannot be a "true skeptic."

Sounds as though there are no "true skeptics" at all by your definition.

Not only can't true skeptics be religious, they can't exist!.

-Bri