True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Bri]

That is what I have been saying.

I agree with what you have said except this:

If you make any assumptions and reach personal decisions or beliefs in the absence of evidence then, yes you are not a "true sceptic".

And as I have been saying all along, no-one really is a true or perfect sceptic.

My argument with this is merely a semantic one. I don't think a "true" skeptic is the same as a "perfect" skeptic. Nobody would argue that they aren't perfect, but to say that a person isn't "true" has certain connotations to it.

To say that someone who isn't completely agnostic about all matters isn't a "true" skeptic is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I would argue that any skeptic is a "true" skeptic, but that no skeptic is a "perfect" skeptic.

Furthermore, I would argue that if skepticism is a continuum, a theist can be as skeptical as a strong atheist can concerning the existance of a god.

-Bri

 

[Ashles]

A agree with what you have said except this:

My argument with this is merely a semantic one. I don't think a "true" skeptic is the same as a "perfect" skeptic. Nobody would argue that they aren't perfect, but to say that a person isn't "true" has certain connotations to it.

To say that someone who isn't completely agnostic about all matters isn't a "true" skeptic is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I would argue that any skeptic is a "true" skeptic, but that no skeptic is a "perfect" skeptic.

Furthermore, I would argue that if skepticism is a continuum, a theist can be as skeptical as a strong atheist can concerning the existance of a god.

-Bri

It sounds like we are agreeing. The only dispute is what is meant by "true sceptic".

My issue was with the OP in that it appeared to be excluding those who believe in God from the possibility of approaching issues sceptically, which is just plain incorrect.
And as you say they can even approach their own beliefs sceptically (although I would have thought that a sceptical approach to religion would lead people away from it rather than to remain part of it, but obviously that is not the case)

 

[BS Investigator]

Of course it could, but there is no evidence to indicate that it will. If you believe that it will, then your belief is without evidence, just like a theist's belief in God.
-Bri

I don't "believe" in other intelligent life. Bri, you make a lot of straw-men arguments here. I don't "believe" aliens exist, I just think it is possible. Science in no way contradicts or prohibits other intelligent life in the galaxy, but it does contradict people "rising from the dead" and "parting the Red Sea."

 

[Bri]

I don't "believe" in other intelligent life. Bri, you make a lot of straw-men arguments here. I don't "believe" aliens exist, I just think it is possible. Science in no way contradicts or prohibits other intelligent life in the galaxy, but it does contradict people "rising from the dead" and "parting the Red Sea."

You implied that agnosticism is the only position that a "true skeptic" can take. You then argued at there is more evidence for aliens than for God, presumably to show that a "true skeptic" could believe in aliens (or that a belief in aliens is actually an agnostic position, which it isn't).

If it is true that a "true skeptic" must be an agnostic, then a "true skeptic" cannot believe that aliens exist because there's no proof (in fact, there is no evidence of it).

Nor can a "true skeptic" believe that no aliens exist because there's no proof (or evidence) of that either.

In fact, a "true skeptic" cannot hold a belief or an opinion about any subject, because by your definition a "true skeptic" would never be able to claim an actual belief or opinion unless there was proof. However, there is no such thing as a belief or opinion for which there is proof (these are known as "facts" rather than beliefs or opinions).

By your definition, there are no "true skeptics." In other words, nobody is an agnostic about everything. Nobody witholds belief in everything for which there isn't proof one way or the other.

I would instead argue that any skeptic is a "true skeptic" but that there are no "perfect skeptics." I would also argue that either an atheist or a theist can be a skeptic as long as they question their beliefs.

That was what I was attempting to say. If I implied that you believed in aliens, then I apologize for not being clear.

-Bri

 

[BS Investigator]

You implied that agnosticism is the only position that a "true skeptic" can take. You then argued at there is more evidence for aliens than for God, presumably to show that a "true skeptic" could believe in aliens (or that a belief in aliens is actually an agnostic position, which it isn't).

If it is true that a "true skeptic" must be an agnostic, then a "true skeptic" cannot believe that aliens exist because there's no proof (in fact, there is no evidence of it).

Nor can a "true skeptic" believe that no aliens exist because there's no proof (or evidence) of that either.

In fact, a "true skeptic" cannot hold a belief or an opinion about any subject, because by your definition a "true skeptic" would never be able to claim an actual belief or opinion unless there was proof. However, there is no such thing as a belief or opinion for which there is proof (these are known as "facts" rather than beliefs or opinions).

By your definition, there are no "true skeptics." In other words, nobody is an agnostic about everything. Nobody witholds belief in everything for which there isn't proof one way or the other.

I would instead argue that any skeptic is a "true skeptic" but that there are no "perfect skeptics." I would also argue that either an atheist or a theist can be a skeptic as long as they question their beliefs.

That was what I was attempting to say. If I implied that you believed in aliens, then I apologize for not being clear.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I'm sure that you have a well-reasoned rebuttal, but you might consider using your fingers rather than your head to type it in.

-Bri

 

[BS Investigator]

Bri, you have thrown up so many strawmen on this thread that if I tossed a lit match, the whole thread would go up in flames.

 

[Donn]

Anyone: Rational argument, english words, points are made, some conclusions are draw perhaps a question or two posed.

Bri: Well the BELIEF you have in X is not Sceptic.

Anyone: I never said belief, I said it ..... fill in .....

Bri: Your BELIEF makes this ....

(loop)





BSI - I find just shaking my head gently sideways does less harm to my desk

 

[Thomas]

Bri, you have thrown up so many strawmen on this thread that if I tossed a lit match, the whole thread would go up in flames.

Well, I agree. When I read Bri's response to my latest post, I soon realized that the (deliberate) misunderstandings simply were too many. That's why I haven't responded as of yet, and that's why I probably won't either.

 

[Bri]

Bri, you have thrown up so many strawmen on this thread that if I tossed a lit match, the whole thread would go up in flames.

Anyone: Rational argument, english words, points are made, some conclusions are draw perhaps a question or two posed.

Bri: Well the BELIEF you have in X is not Sceptic.

Anyone: I never said belief, I said it ..... fill in .....

Bri: Your BELIEF makes this ....

(loop)

BSI - I find just shaking my head gently sideways does less harm to my desk

Well, I agree. When I read Bri's response to my latest post, I soon realized that the (deliberate) misunderstandings simply were too many. That's why I haven't responded as of yet, and that's why I probably won't either.

Since the three on that side of the argument all seem to be nodding in unison about all the "straw men" I have apparently (and deliberately) thrown out, but nobody seems interested in specifying exactly what they are, then it would seem that I have nothing more to say at this time.

Thanks for a lively discussion all!

-Bri

 

[BS Investigator]

Since the three on that side of the argument all seem to be nodding in unison about all the "straw men" I have apparently (and deliberately) thrown out, but nobody seems interested in specifying exactly what they are, then it would seem that I have nothing more to say at this time.

Thanks for a lively discussion all!

-Bri

Okay, Bri! Peace out.

 

[luchog]

Although I'm not a Christian, I know of several who would disagree. In fact, if you can show me two Christians who agree on exactly what constitutes "an integral part of the scripture" and what doesn't, I would be very impressed.

That is the core of denominationalism. The denominations are simply factions composed of people who agree on what are the "critical" parts of scripture, and what are the "personal" parts. So there will always be groups of people who agree on exactly what constituted "vital" parts of scripture, as opposed to those parts which are open to personal interpretation.

Many religions encourage (even require) doubt in a way that Christianity doesn't. Even so, I would argue that it is possible to be a "true Christian" and a "true skeptic."

Actually, if you read the scriptures, there are many parts that strongly encourage skepticism. Most denominations encourage skepticism in certain, limited areas. A few encourage it broadly. Very very few discourage it completely; but those tend to be highly militant and vocal.

Christianity as a religion is not monolithic. Far from it. In fact, it may be the most diverse single religion in the world; for various reasons more appropriately discussed in a the Religion forum. The real problem is when one particular group claims that their version is the One True Religion; and they have the only fully correct doctrine.

 

[Bri]

That is the core of denominationalism...

Actually, if you read the scriptures, there are many parts that strongly encourage skepticism...

Christianity as a religion is not monolithic. Far from it. In fact, it may be the most diverse single religion in the world...

I fully agree with everything you wrote.

BTW, are you the cartoonist responsible for the bunny cartoons depicted in your avatar?

-Bri

 

[Donn]

..but nobody seems interested in specifying exactly what they are..

I BELIEVE they're the ones made from straw.

 

[Bri]

I BELIEVE they're the ones made from straw.

I don't mean any disrespect, but the only reason I can think of to throw out accusations of random fallacies without any attempt to back them up is to try to discredit the person with whom you're arguing rather than to discredit their argument.

This is known as an ad hominem attack or ad hominem fallacy.

You're not the only one guilty, but you happen to the the one who replied last. Again, thank you for the lively conversation, but I must bow out at this time.

-Bri

 

[luchog]

I fully agree with everything you wrote.

BTW, are you the cartoonist responsible for the bunny cartoons depicted in your avatar?

Nope, not me. I'm not nearly that talented; but the original comics are quite funny.

 

[Robin]

You seem to have no problem taking the "strong atheist" view towards faeries, but you have a problem with it in reference to a god.

Err... can you show where I have stated any belief position towards faeries? No. I pointed out that the belief that there were no faeries was falsifiable.

Do you think that saying "X is falsifiable" is tantamount to saying "I believe X"?

So in order to be a "true skeptic" you are saying that you must be agnostic towards anything that cannot be proven one way or the other. You claimed that you believe that there are no faeries, which is not an agnostic view, but a "strong atheist" view towards faeries. So, you're not being a "true skeptic" in your beliefs in faeries by your own definition.

Did I say 'proven'? I don't think so. If there is no evidence that points one way or the other then a skeptic cannot just plump for one side. The word agnostic is to imprecise, but what is wrong with saying, "there is no evidence one way or the other"?

Well, you yourself admitted a similar view of faeries.

As I said before I have nowhere even stated a belief position on faeries, elves or pixies. None of your quotes is an example I asked for:

I don't want to speak for anyone, but here are some posts from people claiming a strong atheist position towards gods:

This one is from this thread.

No:

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

This one is from another thread.

No:

I'll argue that strong atheism is illogical if it is not specifically targeted towards the notion of god (NoG) as defined by a specific religious belief (SRB).

This one is from three posts from this one (I'm psychic).

No:

Like Robin, I have not seen anyone claiming that "it is impossible for any god to exist".

So all three people you quoted state clearly that they are not strong atheists under your definition.

 

[BS Investigator]

Robin, how does it feel to have someone stuff your shirt full of straw?

 

[Pedro Gomes]

I found this thread only yesterday and am slowly reading it. Anyway, decided to post something. I lost track of how many times I’ve had to explain to people why I object to being called an atheist when in fact I’m an agnostic. (Once, I even heard a respected Franciscan say on TV that, nowadays, people are afraid to assume their atheism and therefore come up with this “agnostic” designation.) Well, at some point I came up with the simple picture attached to this post, which has proved quite useful in conveying to various interlocutors the main differences I see between religiousness, atheism, and agnosticism.

In short, religiousness and atheism are indeed opposed to each other, in the sense that religious people believe that a god exists, whereas atheists believe that a god does not exist. That’s why they’re depicted as separate corners of a triangle. However, in a certain sense, religiousness and atheism are on the same side: the side of definite belief. Both religious people and atheists believe in something without room for doubt. That’s why they’re depicted on the same side of the triangle. In contrast, agnostics do not know if god exists or even if it’s possible to know. So, they’re on the opposite side: the side of doubt.

I’d be glad to hear any comments on how to improve this picture, or just refute it altogether. (Also, surely this is no big news, but anyway: atheism originates in Greek atheos godless, and agnosticism originates in Greek agnOstos unknown.)

Personally, I think agnosticism is the position most “in tune with” science and scepticism, but I believe excellent scientists and sceptics can be found on any one of the three corners of the triangle. By the way, in these forums, the word “scepticism” appears to always regard a scientific attitude towards paranormal beliefs. But, more generally, scepticism is an attitude of doubt towards any particular subject. For example, among Christians, different interpretations of the Bible may give rise to a variety of sceptical attitudes, but such discussions can hardly be labelled scientific.

 

[Robin]

Personally, I think agnosticism is the position most “in tune with” science and scepticism, but I believe excellent scientists and sceptics can be found on any one of the three corners of the triangle. By the way, in these forums, the word “scepticism” appears to always regard a scientific attitude towards paranormal beliefs. But, more generally, scepticism is an attitude of doubt towards any particular subject. For example, among Christians, different interpretations of the Bible may give rise to a variety of sceptical attitudes, but such discussions can hardly be labelled scientific.

The problem is that if you define atheism, as I do as "I don't believe there is a God" as opposed to "I believe there is no God" then atheism is not on the belief side of the graphic since it does not describe a belief but a lack of a belief. But it cannot be classed as doubt either. Doubt implies that there is some belief in the first place to doubt.

So atheism can neither be classed as belief nor doubt.

It is like the statement "Joe Blow is a crook". You can have all the statements on the belief/doubt spectrum:

"I believe Joe Blow is a crook"
"I believe Joe Blow is not a crook"
"I doubt that Joe Blow is a crook"
"I doubt that Joe Blow is not a crook"

But none of these would apply if you had never heard of Joe Blow or didn't know enough about Joe Blow. Or if you didn't know which Joe Blow was being discussed. You are not even on the belief/doubt spectrum.

But then you might get onto the "know/don't know" spectrum and things are not completely clear here:

"We can never truly know if Joe Blow is a crook" would not be true if it was possible for evidence to convict or clear him.

So you are left with "I don't know if Joe Blow is a crook" and even this is not completely clear.

If you made this statement after sitting through Joe Blow's trial and hearing the case for and against him in detail it would mean one thing.

If you made this statement without even knowing who Joe Blow is then it would mean another.

So to me generic atheism is, in effect, "I don't know if Joe Blow is a crook because I don't know who you are talking about".

It is not suspending judgement because judgement cannot even have commenced until more information is forthcoming. It does not mean that I stay awake at night wondering if Joe Blow is a crook.