WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, gods are mythical beings

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is not about the god debate, it is about the respect debate. It's a given we should be polite and respectful regarding peoples' god beliefs (and whatever else one believes without evidence.) So Dr Plait's concern we not be dicks isn't the point I want to get at.

But is there really some unoffensive means of addressing the theist skeptics among us that doesn't involve ignoring the elephant in the room (applying critical thinking to every god except 'your god')?

There is yet one more post in Swift in reply to complaints from theist skeptics that they would like an exception made for their beliefs which we don't make for other unsupportable beliefs.

Is There New Atheism at the JREF?

The following sentence is my concern:

While theism — belief in god — is a supernatural claim, it is not our primary focus at the JREF. Instead, we focus on advancing critical thinking in general and skepticism about pseudoscience, the paranormal, and the supernatural in particular, especially when the supernatural beliefs are testable.

I am in total agreement we should be addressing the critical thinking process and not the conclusions people come to. We should be debating the evidence, not simply stating the conclusions we have come to. But the "untestable claims" premise is being used, IMO, as a manufactured apology to avoid having to address, among other things, the "supernatural claim" of god beliefs.

Yes, there is a principle in science that says one cannot rule out such things as gods existing. And yes one can cite a principle in science that says one must construct a falsifiable hypothesis in order to test it. But I see these principles being misused as excuses to not have to confront our theist members' god beliefs, or for theist skeptics to avoid having to address their own double standard when it comes to applying critical thinking to some of their beliefs.

I'm not trying to say people need to believe [X] or they are not true skeptics. I'm not saying skeptic theists can't be in happy-place bliss with their cognitive dissonance. I'm saying I find tiptoeing around the elephant in the room (applying critical thinking to every god except 'your god') is a problem.

I don't think poorly of you if you believe in gods. I think god beliefs are the result of superstitious magical thinking. Should I lie about that?

All the words I use to describe superstitious magical thinking can have a negative connotation. Is there any way around this that is still an honest reflection of what supernatural beliefs are? Is the only way to politely say, "you believe in magic and superstition," done by avoiding the elephant and concocting apologies: NOMa, faith based applies to some different universe where science doesn't apply, if you make a supernatural claim I'll just say it isn't a concern of science?

If I find 'NOMa', 'faith based', 'no testable claims', and 'science can't test a supernatural claim' to be apologies to avoid the elephant in the room, how do I tell you, the theist, that fact* without offending you, (besides adding the, 'with all due respect', type polite caveats to soften the challenge to your beliefs)?

Non-theist input in the discussion is, of course, also welcome.

*"Fact" in this case is the fact that I find NOMa, etc., to be manufactured apologies and not legitimate arguments for the existence of some non-science based realm of the Universe.

 

[SOdhner]

I'm a deist and you can tell me that my belief is irrational. I will agree with you. If I'm right it is only by coincidence because my belief is unfounded by any kind of evidence. I get that, but it doesn't change my belief. In my case that belief doesn't interfere with any other logical reasoning because I don't think that God intervenes anyway and so He can safely be left out of the discussion and treated as if He doesn't exist. Once I make that clear the next question I'm usually asked is why I believe in God if it is indistinguishable from no God, which means the person I'm talking to doesn't have a good understanding of how belief works.

 

[Twiler]

I'm a deist and you can tell me that my belief is irrational. I will agree with you. If I'm right it is only by coincidence because my belief is unfounded by any kind of evidence. I get that, but it doesn't change my belief. In my case that belief doesn't interfere with any other logical reasoning because I don't think that God intervenes anyway and so He can safely be left out of the discussion and treated as if He doesn't exist. Once I make that clear the next question I'm usually asked is why I believe in God if it is indistinguishable from no God, which means the person I'm talking to doesn't have a good understanding of how belief works.

*applause*

Good for you.

 

[Piscivore]

Yes, there is a principle in science that says one cannot rule out such things as gods existing. And yes one can cite a principle in science that says one must construct a falsifiable hypothesis in order to test it. But I see these principles being misused as excuses to not have to confront our theist members' god beliefs, or for theist skeptics to avoid having to address their own double standard when it comes to applying critical thinking to some of their beliefs.

I'm not trying to say people need to believe [X] or they are not true skeptics.

It kinda seems like you are. If there is not atheist requirement to be a skeptic, why do those "theist members' god beliefs" need to be "confronted" at all?

If I find 'NOMa', 'faith based', 'no testable claims', and 'science can't test a supernatural claim' to be apologies to avoid the elephant in the room, how do I tell you, the theist, that fact* without offending you, (besides adding the, 'with all due respect', type polite caveats to soften the challenge to your beliefs)?

Why do you feel compelled to tell them anything at all in this respect?

 

[Fnord]

I am in total agreement we should be addressing the critical thinking process and not the conclusions people come to.

Then may I suggest that the process of "addressing the critical thinking process" be spelled out somewhere? What I'm seeing in addressing claims (wooish or otherwise) is akin to a dozen or so different fire departments, each with different levels of training, and each with different classes of equipment, arriving at a fire and attacking it without coordination, and often getting in each other's way in their efforts to deal the final blow to the fire. Is there an established protocol for forum debates? Is one needed (or even wanted)?

We should be debating the evidence, not simply stating the conclusions we have come to.

Great idea! Now, if only claimants would provide evidence worth debating in the first place...

But the "untestable claims" premise is being used, IMO, as a manufactured apology to avoid having to address, among other things, the "supernatural claim" of god beliefs.

As in "This is a faith-based opinion, so you can't touch it, even though I've introduced it into the debate to support my claim"?

I also suggest that any claim that is presented without concern for proper grammar, punctuation and spelling in one or more of the Anglic dialects (English, Amerish, Australish, et cetera) be automatically "disqualified" somehow from serious debate.

 

[Beth]

This is not about the god debate, it is about the respect debate. It's a given we should be polite and respectful regarding peoples' god beliefs (and whatever else one believes without evidence.) So Dr Plait's concern we not be dicks isn't the point I want to get at.

But is there really some unoffensive means of addressing the theist skeptics among us that doesn't involve ignoring the elephant in the room (applying critical thinking to every god except 'your god')?

I don't think there is any unoffensive way of forcing theist skeptics to listen to your point of view, just as there isn't any unoffensive way of forcing an atheist to listen to an evangelical christian try to convince him/her that there really is a god.

This doesn't mean you have to ignore the elephant in the room. You just have to confine yourself to addressing those theist skeptics who have indicated they are interested in discussing the subject with you. If they are offended by your talking about the elephant in the room, they need to leave the room with the elephant in it.

If, for some reason, you feel a pressing need to force theistic skeptics to participate in such a discussion, only then do you need to find a way to communicate your message without offending them. If this what you are asking for?

I'm not trying to say people need to believe [X] or they are not true skeptics. I'm not saying skeptic theists can't be in happy-place bliss with their cognitive dissonance. I'm saying I find tiptoeing around the elephant in the room (applying critical thinking to every god except 'your god') is a problem.

Why do you feel you must do this? Can you give an example of a post which caused you to feel you must tiptoe around the elephant in the room?

I don't think poorly of you if you believe in gods. I think god beliefs are the result of superstitious magical thinking. Should I lie about that?

No. In general lying and deceit is not a good basis for any kind of discussion. Is that the only only course of action you feel is available to avoid offending theistic skeptics?

All the words I use to describe superstitious magical thinking can have a negative connotation. Is there any way around this that is still an honest reflection of what supernatural beliefs are? Is the only way to politely say, "you believe in magic and superstition," done by avoiding the elephant and concocting apologies: NOMa, faith based applies to some different universe where science doesn't apply, if you make a supernatural claim I'll just say it isn't a concern of science?

Isn't it conceivable that some skeptics actually give the matter substantial critical thought and conclude that NOMA is correct? That they are neither ignoring the elephant nor concocting an apology, but stating their honest opinion? If someone makes a supernatural claim that isn't testable, such as the deist or pantheist god, what do you think is a more appropriate skeptical response rather than admitting that it isn't testable?

*"Fact" in this case is the fact that I find NOMa, etc., to be manufactured apologies and not legitimate arguments for the existence of some non-science based realm of the Universe.

NOMA never struck me as either an apology or an argument for the existance of some non-science based realm of the universe. Why do you perceive it that way?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It kinda seems like you are. If there is not atheist requirement to be a skeptic, why do those "theist members' god beliefs" need to be "confronted" at all?


Why do you feel compelled to tell them anything at all in this respect?

I feel compelled to stand by the principle that NOMa, etc, is an apology, not a valid concept.

As for true skeptics, that's been discussed in depth here before. No one is a perfect skeptic and lots of skeptics have unskeptical beliefs. It's not an issue. The issue is all the apologies being made in lieu of saying to a skeptic theist, "the evidence says that your god belief is no different from belief in Pele or Thor or the Cargo God".

Can you tell a 911 CTer their beliefs are baseless? Can you tell an anti-vaxxer their evidence is false? Yet tell a theist the evidence says they believe in a myth and suddenly you've been rude.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm a deist and you can tell me that my belief is irrational. I will agree with you. If I'm right it is only by coincidence because my belief is unfounded by any kind of evidence. I get that, but it doesn't change my belief. In my case that belief doesn't interfere with any other logical reasoning because I don't think that God intervenes anyway and so He can safely be left out of the discussion and treated as if He doesn't exist. Once I make that clear the next question I'm usually asked is why I believe in God if it is indistinguishable from no God, which means the person I'm talking to doesn't have a good understanding of how belief works.

I suggest the Deist god was invented as more and more god beliefs were shown to be myths. If all the test results keep coming out against one's god conclusion, just redefine one's god as untestable.

It's fine you believe in it. But I'd like the issue of why Deist god definitions were developed to be a discussable issue.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Help me here. Am I just supposed to be respectful to people who believe in "main stream" gods or respectful to anybody who believes in something he/she/it calls a "god"? I'm asking how much mythical is needed before it does deserve respect. (And if you think I give respect solely because a person hasn't managed to get themselves killed yet and are able to post here, you are badly, sadly mistaken.)

 

[BenBurch]

... which means the person I'm talking to doesn't have a good understanding of how belief works.

No, I am sad to say, it's because that person often does know how it works, and pities you.

 

[Piscivore]

I feel compelled to stand by the principle that NOMa, etc, is an apology, not a valid concept.

Okay. Does that mean that you feel compelled to tell anyone that mentions it in any context, every time? Or can you just let people be wrong about it? Or do you feel that being silent is "lying"?

I think that parents that restrict their children's exposure to the less pleasant things in life are doing them a disservice. Is it therefore incumbent upon me to lecture every parent I see that disagrees?

As for true skeptics, that's been discussed in depth here before. No one is a perfect skeptic and lots of skeptics have unskeptical beliefs. It's not an issue.

No, its apparently only an issue if the "unskeptical belief" is a "god belief".

The issue is all the apologies being made in lieu of saying to a skeptic theist, "the evidence says that your god belief is no different from belief in Pele or Thor or the Cargo God".

So if someone says "you can't win if you don't play", do you feel it necessary to adress their "apology" of playing the lottery?

Can you tell a 911 CTer their beliefs are baseless?

If he brings it up, sure.

Can you tell an anti-vaxxer their evidence is false?

Yes, absolutely, if they present it.

Yet tell a theist the evidence says they believe in a myth and suddenly you've been rude.

Not always. But there's a bit of a difference here- "911 CTer" and "anti-vaxxer" are less likely to form a large part of someone's emotional identity. Confronting those beliefs are just arguing against something they think. Arguing someone's religious beliefs and you're taking shots at something they feel they are. Further, 911 CTers and anti-vaxxers can't really present their beliefs absent a call to action- they are constructed entirely around a specific problem they feel impacts everyone, a problem that must be addressed by some kind of public action or the belief is meaningless.

Contrariwise, most religious beliefs- especially the sort usually found among those that consider themselves skeptics- are entirely personal beliefs that they really don't feel applies to anyone else. I've never been to a TAM- maybe there is a huge problem with aggressivly evangelical skeptical theists running around out there- but I know I've never seen one in six years on this board.

 

[Piscivore]

Help me here. Am I just supposed to be respectful to people... ?

Yes.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes.

Why? If they earn respect, I'm happy to give it. I don't respect people just for being alive, all that takes in most cases is cowardice.

 

[Piscivore]

Why? If they earn respect, I'm happy to give it. I don't respect people just for being alive, all that takes in most cases is cowardice.

There is a difference between "respecting" and "being respectful to...".

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is a difference between "respecting" and "being respectful to...".

How about I "tolerate" them? Because there's no way I'll ever respect some of the people who post here. "Mr. Fraction" knows this, I think.

 

[Piscivore]

How about I "tolerate" them?

That's synonymous to the latter, as far as I'm concerned.

Because there's no way I'll ever respect some of the people who post here. "Mr. Fraction" knows this, I think.

I wouldn't ask you too. "Respect" is a personal value judgment. "Respectful" is a kind of behaviour. it's a distinction that gets lost when fervent beliefs (or lacks thereof ) are involved- especially those that are informed by emotion reasons.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's synonymous to the latter, as far as I'm concerned.

Devaluing the term, aren't you? "Respectful" implies respect.

I wouldn't ask you too. "Respect" is a personal value judgment. "Respectful" is a kind of behaviour. it's a distinction that gets lost when fervent beliefs (or lacks thereof ) are involved- especially those that are informed by emotion reasons.

That kind of behaviour should be shown to those who are worthy of respect. Being alive isn't an instant qualification. My athlete's foot is alive.

 

[Piscivore]

Devaluing the term, aren't you? "Respectful" implies respect.

The "respect" I'm talking about would be for the fact that the person in front of me is another human being, if nothing else.

I tend to agree with Granny Weatherwax on this matter- treating people like things is the root of all "evil".

That kind of behaviour should be shown to those who are worthy of respect. Being alive isn't an instant qualification. My athlete's foot is alive.

Is being human? Why not?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The "respect" I'm talking about would be for the fact that the person in front of me is another human being, if nothing else.

I keep saying that being alive is no good reason to respect someone. You say it is. Why?

I tend to agree with Granny Weatherwax on this matter- treating people like things is the root of all "evil".


Is being human? Why not?

There's nothing special about being human, and very little special about being alive.

 

[Wolfman]

My response to this is very simple; I think that your sentiments, while well-intended, are also misguided. That's not surprising, you're hardly alone. I think that the attempts of many atheist organizations, and many atheist 'leaders' (such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens) are misguided, also.

Personally, I don't think its an issue either of confronting theists, or of making excuses for them.

What it should be is an issue of critical thinking. Teach people what critical thinking is, and how to use it -- atheists and theists alike. I think the whole "I am right, you are wrong, here is the proof, and you must study it and reach the same conclusions that I did" approach is nonsense.

Too many people approach "education" from the perspective of "I know what the truth is, and education should focus on getting others to reach the same conclusions." What a load of horse crap. Education -- of any kind -- should focus on helping people understand what critical thinking is, and then getting them to apply that, on their own, to their own beliefs, ideas, and conclusions. Give them the tools to enable them to find correct answers on their own. Without the patronizing attitude.

I've been using this approach for years; and even in people who's beliefs are very different from my own, I've very rarely found resistance or opposition to the proposal that they simply should learn how to evaluate evidence more clearly and properly; and how to avoid making mistaken judgments. It is only when I introduce the aspect that, "I want you to do this because you are wrong and I am right", that people begin to resist and oppose such efforts.

I am an ex-fundamentalist Christian -- went to Bible college, came to China originally as a missionary -- who eventually rejected his beliefs not because some self-proclaimed skeptic "showed me the light"; but because as I developed my critical thinking skills, and evaluated the evidence for and against my beliefs, I eventually reached the conclusion that my beliefs were wrong.

More importantly, it is just as important to teach critical thinking skills to atheists, as it is to theists. Because they are every bit as prone to bad thinking, wrong conclusions, and all sorts of logical errors. Just because they happen to lack a belief in a supernatural entity doesn't automatically make them more rational.

A world in which we focused on teaching critical thinking --without an agenda of trying to convince anyone of any particular belief, or using it to show others they are wrong -- is a world in which, I believe, there will be far fewer of the problems that we have to day.

To those who will, inevitably, point out that there are people who don't want to learn to think critically, or who will ignore evidence where it contradicts their belief (and this includes atheists as well as theists) -- I agree. There are people like this. And for such people, I don't really envision any kind of argument that will change their minds. It is impossible to create a world that doesn't have people like this. All I want is to have enough people who are critical thinkers, who can apply rational processes to their ideas and beliefs, that the damage of the other group can be minimized as much as possible.