Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

[Prometheus]

So you think the organization should not take a position on evolution theory? How about a position on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy?

This is an example of the double standard I have been talking about. JREF positions on some scientific conclusions are a given. Yet on the god question we have to ignore the obvious elephant in the room and accommodate all the can't-quite-let-go-of-god skeptics along with the don't-step-on-god-believer's-toes (other woo believers not included) skeptics who find it easier to be PC than to take a good critically thought out look at the actual evidence.

I predict future skeptics are going to look back at this phase of human kind the same way we look back on the people who believed in Zeus.

Zeus. Geez, I hate that guy. :)

I agree with everything you say here, except the implication that JREF is wrong to be behaving this way. JREF is primarily an educational organization, not an advocacy group. What good is being educational if you won't accomodate the people you're trying to educate?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I participate on this site to improve my critical thinking skills and learn stuff...
It's not working.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, a lot of them do.

But your analogy otherwise just doesn't cut it unless you are trying to claim god beliefs are not woo.
I think that was a response to TA's ultra narrow definition of atheist.

TA thinks that rocks are atheist.

As I pointed out, by that definition, then JREF is in fact an atheist organization already.

[The Atheist]

I think that was a response to TA's ultra narrow definition of atheist.

TA thinks that rocks are atheist.

As I pointed out, by that definition, then JREF is in fact an atheist organization already.

As it happens, I don't think rocks are anythingist. But when I get asked a stupid question, I try to respond in kind.

Narrow definitiion? Surely you jest?

[JoeTheJuggler]

So you think the organization should not take a position on evolution theory? How about a position on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy?

I see no problem with those things. Or even taking a position against religious exorcisms or other such nonsense. The primary reason JREF doesn't take on purely religious/spiritual claims in the MDC is, according to their FAQ, just a practical matter of falsifiability of these claims. (And I happen to think many of the claims can be falsified by deductive reasoning, but the MDC is based on demonstration and not logic.)

But the question was, "Why isn't JREF an atheist organization?"

I've done my best to answer this question, and I've given solid support for my reasoning. I've yet to see anyone take on the content of what I've said.

[JoeTheJuggler]

As it happens, I don't think rocks are anythingist. But when I get asked a stupid question, I try to respond in kind.

Narrow definitiion? Surely you jest?

So you don't think rocks are atheist?

Then you don't think the term atheist strictly only means without a god, do you?

It wasn't a stupid question. It was trying to see if you really meant what you said, and apparently you didn't.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have yet to follow the link you posted re the Greek prefix 'a'... but you have piqued my interest, and for that I am sincerely grateful - and one day, if/when I feel like it, I'll investigate further :)
Funny--without "investigating further" on this point, you felt confident enough to say I was wrong about it several times.

I get the impression that you're obsessed with being right - even if that means going off on a tangent... a direction I have no need/desire to follow, thanks all the same

:)
This is an example of argumentum ad hominem. You fail utterly to address any of the points I've made on the subject.

By the way, the meaning of atheism was central to your objection to my explanation of why JREF is not an atheist organization. Nothing tangential about it.

Remember, I've never argued that strong atheism isn't a valid definition of the term. (In fact, it's the one I personally espouse.) But just linguistically, you have to recognize that weak atheism is also a legitimate usage of the word.

And my explanation works either way. Skepticism is a method of following the evidence to reach a conclusion (that is, the provisional acceptance or rejection of a proposition). Atheism is either the acceptance of the proposition "No god exists" [strong atheism] or the rejection of the proposition "A god or gods exist(s)".

Again, I have no problem with JREF taking a stronger position about analyzing bogus arguments, religiously motivated "science", etc. JREF has taken on religious themes: Peter Popoff, creationism, intercessory prayer and several other religious topics.

Similarly, I don't think JREF should simply be anti-homeopathy without an attempt at educating people to the arguments for why that conclusion is the best one.

[Jono]

Actually, a lot of them do.

But your analogy otherwise just doesn't cut it unless you are trying to claim god beliefs are not woo.

Yes my comment was basically a tounge-in-cheek one. My reason for it was that an organisation that has no official position on God isn't by default an atheist org, of course. However, with NRA any such hypothetical position wouldn't be a mystery to guess (perhaps I'm mistaken and that they, in fact, already have one?), and neither would it be in the case of JREF.

[The Atheist]

Similarly, I don't think JREF should simply be anti-homeopathy without an attempt at educating people to the arguments for why that conclusion is the best one.(bolding mine)

Quod erat demonstrandum.

You win, Joe. You're a classic example of a skeptic.

I've enjoyed watching you be given both evidence and explanations of why you're completely wrong only to arrive at the exact same position you started.

Your kind of education is a sure-fire winner.

[Dunstan]

Similarly, I don't think JREF should simply be anti-homeopathy without an attempt at educating people to the arguments for why that conclusion is the best one.

Wow, you think the JREF should offer arguments in support of its position? Well, that's certainly a bold and innovative position! Certainly separates you from ... well, nobody, come to think of it.

Do you really think that anyone is arguing that the JREF should be anti-homeopathy as a matter of dogma and refuse to offer any supporting arguments?

[six7s]

So you don't think rocks are atheist?So... you do think want to pretend that rocks are theistic? :confused:

[laca]

So you don't think rocks are atheist?So... you do think want to pretend that rocks are theistic? :confused:
Mu, anyone? :rolleyes:

[Beth]

There's little point in getting into debate on what "atheism" means, or whether it ought to defend its position anyway. Let's just accept that for the purpose of this discussion, atheism is just a lack of belief in god/s. It's actually self-labelled "agnostics" who have the hardest time with it, because by not "knowing" they automatically do not believe and are therfore actually atheists as well. They HATE that, so I won't bring it up.
Thanks. I really hate it when people bring that up!
Yes, but the point of atheism isn't, and shouldn't be, about disproving anyone's god/s. You disprove one, there are eight million lining up behind him and you get bogged down in it, which is one of the objections - that skepticism can be hijacked by religion.

Just don't let it.



Sensible option.

I agree with you here. Best option I've heard.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Zeus. Geez, I hate that guy. :)

I agree with everything you say here, except the implication that JREF is wrong to be behaving this way. JREF is primarily an educational organization, not an advocacy group. What good is being educational if you won't accomodate the people you're trying to educate?The problem with just advocating critical thinking and education is the face of the anti-science efforts regarding many of these issues. The JREF would not need to advocate for evolution theory if organizations like the DI were not advocating to get Creationism taught in science schools. You can say you are neutral and only supporting proper science. It is true. If there was a scientific basis for intelligent design (like if Behe's work was unchallenged), we would be for investigating the evidence for irreducible complexity. So on a technicality, I agree with you, we all know the straw man that science excludes evidence which supposedly supports intelligent design.

But how do you combat Creationism and Sylvia Browne and Homeopathy and so on without ever stepping over the line of advocacy of the valid science?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm merely saying the correct position is rather idealistic and in reality quite hard to remain pure at.


So now what about god beliefs? Once again that double standard rears its head. The way I see it, god beliefs are as ludicrous as homeopathy. But somehow lots of JREF members either tiptoe around the room elephants or have their own blind spots and believe in gods themselves. Can't we at least speak of god beliefs with the same tone we speak of homeopathy? Apparently not.

[Prometheus]

The problem with just advocating critical thinking and education is the face of the anti-science efforts regarding many of these issues. The JREF would not need to advocate for evolution theory if organizations like the DI were not advocating to get Creationism taught in science schools. You can say you are neutral and only supporting proper science. It is true. If there was a scientific basis for intelligent design (like if Behe's work was unchallenged), we would be for investigating the evidence for irreducible complexity. So on a technicality, I agree with you, we all know the straw man that science excludes evidence which supposedly supports intelligent design.

But how do you combat Creationism and Sylvia Browne and Homeopathy and so on without ever stepping over the line of advocacy of the valid science?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm merely saying the correct position is rather idealistic and in reality quite hard to remain pure at.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand you at all. It doesn't seem like you're responding to anything I said.


So now what about god beliefs? Once again that double standard rears its head. The way I see it, god beliefs are as ludicrous as homeopathy. But somehow lots of JREF members either tiptoe around the room elephants or have their own blind spots and believe in gods themselves. Can't we at least speak of god beliefs with the same tone we speak of homeopathy? Apparently not.

I understand this complaint, but I honestly don't see how it applies here. I don't see that there's any shortage of critical commentary of religion here. Who's stopping anyone from ridiculing god beliefs? My point is merely that, as educators, it's counterproductive to alienate those we're trying to reach. Of course, it's not possible to avoid doing so all the time. But why should the JREF take an official position that's guaranteed to alienate a large majority of its target audience?

[six7s]

So you don't think rocks are atheist?So... you do think want to pretend that rocks are theistic? :confused:Mu, anyone? :rolleyes:

Could it not be said that, if dialectic nationalism holds, we have to choose between realism and the pretextual paradigm of consensus, using neopatriarchial sublimation to challenge hierarchy?

Of course, the premise of cultural narrative implies that consciousness is fundamentally dead.... so we have to choose between dialectic nationalism and the postcultural paradigm of reality. However, the subject is interpolated into a textual paradox with a characteristic theme of realism, which is - surely - the difference between truth and identity. Thus, to analyse and modify society, the defining characteristic is stasis. Hence, the sublimation implies that discourse is a product of communication, but only if the analysis of the theory is valid.

If sublimation holds, we have to choose between the deconstructivist paradigm of narrative and textual theory. Therefore, the characteristic theme of sublimation is not deconstruction as such, but subdeconstruction.

The term ‘realism’ to denote the paradigm, some would say the rubicon, of textual theory is - surely - a predominant concept of reality; the main theme the common ground between society and language. Therefore, any number of narratives concerning the stasis, and therefore the absurdity, of identity existas the primary theme of realism in a subcultural reality.

Furthermore, if textual theory holds, we have to choose between sublimation and a deconstructing hierarchy of sublimation (as in Pulp Fiction), with textual theory used to analyse reality - the characteristic difference between society and art.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand you at all. It doesn't seem like you're responding to anything I said.



I understand this complaint, but I honestly don't see how it applies here. I don't see that there's any shortage of critical commentary of religion here. Who's stopping anyone from ridiculing god beliefs? My point is merely that, as educators, it's counterproductive to alienate those we're trying to reach. Of course, it's not possible to avoid doing so all the time. But why should the JREF take an official position that's guaranteed to alienate a large majority of its target audience?It is clear to me what my point is, but I'm convinced many people here are not in a position to recognize the point. Some of the atheists do understand, so I do not believe it is me. It is one of the great communication problems, people cannot always see what they do not know.


Do we have debates about being agnostic about evolution theory?

Do we have debates about being agnostic about homeopathy?

When the evidence is overwhelming that something is woo, do we have a discussion that since we cannot prove something like homeopathy never works, we should not say it does not work?


I agree with you that the JREF is not a 'conclusion' organization, regardless of the conclusion. I thought I made that clear. I totally agree with your point that all we need do is promote science & critical thinking and the rest follows.

But what I was trying to say was that such a position is the ideal. In reality, in the process of defending a rational world from the people pushing irrational ideas, the JREF does not stay pure to its purpose. It cannot help but cross over into the advocacy territory against the Creationists, against psychics, against bad medicine pushers, against conspiracy theorists and so on. Because we also practice critical thinking while promoting it.


All I'm asking is for the JREF to recognize god woo on an equal footing to how we recognize homeopathy and the 911 Truthers. Randi does. He has said so many times. I'm not advocating The Atheist's position that the JREF declare itself an atheist organization. I'd like to think that was a given without a declaration just as it's a given the JREF is on the side of evidence supported evolution theory.

[laca]

Could it not be said that, if dialectic nationalism holds, we have to choose between realism and the pretextual paradigm of consensus, using neopatriarchial sublimation to challenge hierarchy?

Of course, the premise of cultural narrative implies that consciousness is fundamentally dead.... so we have to choose between dialectic nationalism and the postcultural paradigm of reality. However, the subject is interpolated into a textual paradox with a characteristic theme of realism, which is - surely - the difference between truth and identity. Thus, to analyse and modify society, the defining characteristic is stasis. Hence, the sublimation implies that discourse is a product of communication, but only if the analysis of the theory is valid.

If sublimation holds, we have to choose between the deconstructivist paradigm of narrative and textual theory. Therefore, the characteristic theme of sublimation is not deconstruction as such, but subdeconstruction.

The term ‘realism’ to denote the paradigm, some would say the rubicon, of textual theory is - surely - a predominant concept of reality; the main theme the common ground between society and language. Therefore, any number of narratives concerning the stasis, and therefore the absurdity, of identity existas the primary theme of realism in a subcultural reality.

Furthermore, if textual theory holds, we have to choose between sublimation and a deconstructing hierarchy of sublimation (as in Pulp Fiction), with textual theory used to analyse reality - the characteristic difference between society and art.

NOOO, you did not just say that! :D

[JoeTheJuggler]

So... you do think want to pretend that rocks are theistic? :confused:
No. That's how TA answered my question.

He offered the ultra strict definition of atheist as meaning exactly and strictly only "lacking a god or gods". I asked if he believed that rocks and baby humans can properly be called atheist. He said yes, and then no.

I also pointed out that if that is the only meaning of atheist (and it's not), then JREF already is indeed an atheist organization.

Look, I have no problem with saying that JREF puts more emphasis on the same issues Randi has addressed for a great many years (parapsychology, pseudoscience and the like) and not enough emphasis on conventional religions, I might agree. That doesn't mean that JREF is or ought be an atheist organization.

[Prometheus]

It is clear to me what my point is, but I'm convinced many people here are not in a position to recognize the point. Some of the atheists do understand, so I do not believe it is me. It is one of the great communication problems, people cannot always see what they do not know.


Do we have debates about being agnostic about evolution theory?

Do we have debates about being agnostic about homeopathy?

When the evidence is overwhelming that something is woo, do we have a discussion that since we cannot prove something like homeopathy never works, we should not say it does not work?


I agree with you that the JREF is not a 'conclusion' organization, regardless of the conclusion. I thought I made that clear. I totally agree with your point that all we need do is promote science & critical thinking and the rest follows.

But what I was trying to say was that such a position is the ideal. In reality, in the process of defending a rational world from the people pushing irrational ideas, the JREF does not stay pure to its purpose. It cannot help but cross over into the advocacy territory against the Creationists, against psychics, against bad medicine pushers, against conspiracy theorists and so on. Because we also practice critical thinking while promoting it.


All I'm asking is for the JREF to recognize god woo on an equal footing to how we recognize homeopathy and the 911 Truthers. Randi does. He has said so many times. I'm not advocating The Atheist's position that the JREF declare itself an atheist organization. I'd like to think that was a given without a declaration just as it's a given the JREF is on the side of evidence supported evolution theory.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying; I agree.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Re: using the dictionary to support my position that both strong and weak atheism are valid definitions of the term:

Why not? They're frequently wrong.
<snip: see below>

Did anyone ever explain to you that argument by popularity doesn't work? If it did, I wouldn't be an atheist.
Except when it comes to the meaning of words, convention is all there is. There is no other "logically correct but unconventional meaning that supersedes it. Words have no inherent meaning. They only mean what we agree they mean, and Merriam Webster is very good at describing current usage.

So, when it comes to the meaning of a word, conventional usage is all there is. (Please note, I wasn't the one to raise the etymology of the word as evidence of its meaning, but I did show that even the etymology supports both conventionally used meanings.)

What I snipped above:
And American.
Are you suggesting there is a different usage of atheism or atheist in the UK or other English-speaking countries? If not, the fact that I used an American English dictionary is irrelevant. (Also I don't think it's even fair to call Merriam Webster strictly an American dictionary. For example, see its entry on colour (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colour).


This is exactly what skeptigirl's been pointing out. JREF is an atheist organisation, so why does it insist on claiming it is not?
Maybe because they don't recognize your ultra narrow definition of atheist. They're also not a stamp-collecting organization; why don't they come out and say so?!! They're also not a pro-choice organization. Or a pro-life organization.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do we have debates about being agnostic about evolution theory?

Do we have debates about being agnostic about homeopathy?
It depends on who you mean by "we". There are certainly members of the JREF forum who believe in creationism and homeopathy. Such debates happen here almost constantly.

So, if we're going to compare apples to apples, is there any debate within JREF (whatever that means) about the existence of God?


When the evidence is overwhelming that something is woo, do we have a discussion that since we cannot prove something like homeopathy never works, we should not say it does not work?
Again, I'm not sure who the "we" is you're talking about. On the forums, those kinds of discussions are a substantial portion of the content. If you're talking about within JREF (as opposed to here on the forums), I'd ask two things: what specifically does within JREF (JREF other than the forums) mean? are there similar discussions within JREF saying that we must never say God doesn't exist (or, to make it more similar to the homeopathy thing, that we must never say intercessory prayer to God doesn't work)? If so, I'm not aware of such debates or limitations.




All I'm asking is for the JREF to recognize god woo on an equal footing to how we recognize homeopathy and the 911 Truthers. Randi does. He has said so many times. I'm not advocating The Atheist's position that the JREF declare itself an atheist organization. I'd like to think that was a given without a declaration just as it's a given the JREF is on the side of evidence supported evolution theory.
I mostly agree with you here.

My only reservation is that I'm still not sure what it is you're after if it's not what TA is after. How do you suggest JREF should recognize that theism is just as inconsistent with skepticism as belief in astrology or homeopathy or whatever?

That is, you alredy cede that Randi himself has no problem considering God-beliefs to be equivalent to the other stuff. You surely recognize that both sides of both kinds of debates are present here in the forums (that is there are theists, deists and atheists speaking their minds just as there are skeptics and believers in homeopathy and so on here).

The MDC has already been covered. For purposes of the Challenge, the theory or justification of a claim doesn't matter at all. So if a claim is testable, it can be a God-based claim or anything else. (Similarly, in testing homeopathy, we could care less if they think it works by some mysterious water-memory, or Zeus is causing the purported effect or whatever.)

So what specific change in the status quo are you after?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wow, you think the JREF should offer arguments in support of its position? Well, that's certainly a bold and innovative position! Certainly separates you from ... well, nobody, come to think of it.
Except for people who think the JREF should declare itself to be an atheist organization.

Do you really think that anyone is arguing that the JREF should be anti-homeopathy as a matter of dogma and refuse to offer any supporting arguments?
No, and that was my point. We should be consistent in our treatment of homeopathy and god-claims.

We shouldn't just push a conclusion without supporting it--that is the antithesis of skepticism. And I do believe that would be the effect of declaring JREF to be an atheist organization.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's little point in getting into debate on what "atheism" means, or whether it ought to defend its position anyway. Let's just accept that for the purpose of this discussion, atheism is just a lack of belief in god/s.

That is the most blatant example of begging the question I have ever seen.

I've given solid evidence that there are two conventionally used definitions of the term "atheism". You want to assert that there is only one. You don't want to debate the idea; we should all just consider your position to be the correct one.

The fact is there are two completely acceptable definitions of atheism. One is the belief that no gods exist, and the other is the rejection (or lack) of the belief that a god or gods exist.

You want JREF to declare itself to be an atheist organization, but only in an ultra-narrow view (you won't even consider weak atheism to be a rejection of a proposition but merely the lack of acceptance of it) of one of the two definitions.

I'm sorry, but IMO, a discussion of the meaning of the term in question is entirely appropriate.

ETA: BTW, six7s has offered a definition that has nothing to do with belief or lack of belief--he says, "Atheism is an approach to LTUAE that is devoid of theistic woo". six7s has also said that atheism is a "stance" (which sounds like he agrees with me that it's a conclusion: that is, a position wrt a proposition). So it's obvious that there is no clear consensus that your version of weak atheism is the ONLY definition of the term.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It depends on who you mean by "we". There are certainly members of the JREF forum who believe in creationism and homeopathy. Such debates happen here almost constantly.

So, if we're going to compare apples to apples, is there any debate within JREF (whatever that means) about the existence of God? Please tell me the skeptical argument in favor of god beliefs?

Let me start, you cannot disprove gods exist.
God beliefs can coexist with science, if we put them in a separate box.

I've already pointed out why these two avenues are faulty.

Got any other arguments?

[Prometheus]

Got any other arguments?

Catholic school girls are hawt? :duck:

[dglas]

So, where is the JREF's statement that it is not a theist organization?

There are (at least) two possible ways of reading, "The JREF is not an atheist organization."

(1) The trivially true reading that it does not actively promote or assume atheism, which is the one the defenders of the idiotic policy statement mindlessly latch onto.

(2) A reading where the JREF is selecting one group among many to take pains to make a special exclusionary disclaimer with regard to. This is how I read it. When the special dissociation statement is removed I will consider becoming an active participant again.

Is the JREF a gay rights organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at gays and publicly proclaim it is not a gay rights organization?
Is the JREF a black organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at blacks and publicly proclaim it is not a black organization?
Is the JREF a womens organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at women and publicly proclaim it is not a womens organization?
Pick any other examples you care to.

But it points specifically at atheists and publicly proclaims it is not an atheist organization.

There's a reason.

I would say the JREF should not claim it is an atheist organization (and I call myself an anti-theist), but by precisely the same token I would say the JREF should not take special pains to claim it is not an atheist organization. That's exclusionary, indeed discriminatory, and is a significant part of the reason I let my membership in the JREF lapse and only pop in once in a while to see if anyone has learned anything yet.

Not yet. The deists and theists are still poisoning the ear.

I'll check in again in another 6 months or so, maybe.

[Darat]

...snip...

But it points specifically at atheists and publicly proclaims it is not an atheist organization.

There's a reason.

...snip...

Yes there is and that is no one seems to be asking it "Is it a gay rights organisation" or "Is it a women's rights organisation". I suspect that if people were asking it those questions it would respond in the same way as it does to the question "Is it an atheist organisation".

[JoeTheJuggler]

Please tell me the skeptical argument in favor of god beliefs?
What? You said that "we" in JREF never debate atheism/theism (as we do homeopathy). I pointed out that on the forums we certainly do. So what exactly do you mean by "we"? You then say I need to show you a skeptical argument in favor of god beliefs to support my position?

That doesn't make sense.

I also can't show you a good argument in favor of homeopathy.

Let me start, you cannot disprove gods exist.
Deductively, I can, depending on the definition of the term "god", but inductively it's the "no swans are black" problem.

However, just he way you talk about this only serves to support my argument: the reason JREF isn't an atheist organization is because JREF promotes skepticism and critical thinking, not any particular conclusion (and I define conclusion, in terms of skepticism, as the provisional acceptance or rejection of a proposition).

That is, you recognize that atheism is about acceptance or rejection of a proposition about the existence of a god or gods.

Again, to define strong atheism in terms of skepticism, it is the provisional acceptance of the proposition, "No god exists", and weak atheism is the provisional rejection of the proposition, "A god or gods exist(s)".

Your talk about what is or isn't an argument does nothing to refute my answer to the question, Why isn't the JREF an atheist organization?

[JoeTheJuggler]

But it points specifically at atheists and publicly proclaims it is not an atheist organization.

There's a reason.

I'm quite sure the reason is that some people think that JREF ought be an atheist organization (and have voiced this opinion, especially here in the forum where it is a topic that pops up with some regularity), but no one has ever said it ought be a gay rights organization or a women's organization or a black organization.

ETA: Ooops--just caught up and I see Darat has already said largely the same thing.

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, in support of my position that atheism is a conclusion (the provisional acceptance or rejection of a proposition), I have pointed out that it's possible for someone to be an atheist for reasons other than skepticism. Imagine a person who suffers from the delusion that he was abducted by super-advanced aliens, and those aliens told him that no god exists. Based on his delusional experience, this guy could be an atheist.

This shows that the position is a conclusion and is not necessarily always based on skepticism. My answer to the question, "Why isn't JREF an atheist organization?" (and by implication the question, "Do you think JREF ought be an atheist organization?") hinges on the fact that JREF seeks to promote skepticism and critical thinking and not to dispense conclusions.

[six7s]

My answer to the question, "Why isn't JREF an atheist organization?" (and by implication the question, "Do you think JREF ought be an atheist organization?") hinges on the fact that JREF seeks to promote skepticism and critical thinking and not to dispense conclusions.Yeah? By that wibbly-wobbly yardstick, critical thinking is a conclusion, too... for example: others conclude that myth-based beliefs, superstitious rituals amd/or blind faith are keys to enlightenment

[The Atheist]

Yes there is and that is no one seems to be asking it "Is it a gay rights organisation" or "Is it a women's rights organisation". I suspect that if people were asking it those questions it would respond in the same way as it does to the question "Is it an atheist organisation".

Nah. Actually, it's because everyone else can see that the question's both irrelevant and stupid.

Atheism isn't anything like gay rights.

Not to mention the other obvious error that JREF doesn't claim to be "black" or "non-black", completely unlike its claims regarding atheism.

Remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

[Beth]

So, where is the JREF's statement that it is not a theist organization? How often does the JREF get accused of being a theist organization?


There are (at least) two possible ways of reading, "The JREF is not an atheist organization."

(1) The trivially true reading that it does not actively promote or assume atheism, which is the one the defenders of the idiotic policy statement mindlessly latch onto. The statement is trivially true. Therefore it's idiotic to state so clearly. I'm afraid I'm not following the logic there. :rolleyes:

(2) A reading where the JREF is selecting one group among many to take pains to make a special exclusionary disclaimer with regard to. This is how I read it. When the special dissociation statement is removed I will consider becoming an active participant again.
I take it that it's question that is regularly posed to them. It's clear that a large portion of the people who are active in JREF and support it are atheistic. There is considerable overlap of the two groups (skeptics and atheists), far more than would be expected if the two were independent. It's fine to go ahead and make a public policy statement on that aspect because many people get confused about it.

Is the JREF a gay rights organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at gays and publicly proclaim it is not a gay rights organization?
Is the JREF a black organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at blacks and publicly proclaim it is not a black organization?
Is the JREF a womens organization? Why doesn't it specifically point at women and publicly proclaim it is not a womens organization?
Pick any other examples you care to.

But it points specifically at atheists and publicly proclaims it is not an atheist organization.

There's a reason.
Yes. There's a reason. What proportion of the population do you expect to be confused about whether or not the JREF is an animal rights organization, etc. etc. How does that expected level of confusion compare to the level of confusion regarding JREF and atheism? It's reasonable to expect any organizations to limit such statements to other groups that the general public is most likely to be confused about.

I would say the JREF should not claim it is an atheist organization (and I call myself an anti-theist), but by precisely the same token I would say the JREF should not take special pains to claim it is not an atheist organization. That's exclusionary, indeed discriminatory, and is a significant part of the reason I let my membership in the JREF lapse and only pop in once in a while to see if anyone has learned anything yet.

Suit yourself.

Not yet. The deists and theists are still poisoning the ear.

I'll check in again in another 6 months or so, maybe.
All that tolerance of differing opinions can be tiresome and irritating.


This shows that the position is a conclusion and is not necessarily always based on skepticism. My answer to the question, "Why isn't JREF an atheist organization?" (and by implication the question, "Do you think JREF ought be an atheist organization?") hinges on the fact that JREF seeks to promote skepticism and critical thinking and not to dispense conclusions.

I agree with Joe.

[Prometheus]

So, where is the JREF's statement that it is not a theist organization?

There are (at least) two possible ways of reading, "The JREF is not an atheist organization."

(1) The trivially true reading that it does not actively promote or assume atheism, which is the one the defenders of the idiotic policy statement mindlessly latch onto.

(2) A reading where the JREF is selecting one group among many to take pains to make a special exclusionary disclaimer with regard to. This is how I read it. When the special dissociation statement is removed I will consider becoming an active participant again.

<snip>

So you deliberately interpret their words in the way you already know they're not intended? Do you find that to be a useful communication habit?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah? By that wibbly-wobbly yardstick, critical thinking is a conclusion, too... for example: others conclude that myth-based beliefs, superstitious rituals amd/or blind faith are keys to enlightenment
Nope doesn't work. You're just mixing the method with the conclusion.

By the way, what is a "myth-based" belief? I realized many beliefs are mythological, but I don't think anyone believes them because they're myths.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Atheism isn't anything like gay rights.

No one said it is. The question Darat was answering was why does the JREF say it's not an atheist organization but doesn't announce that it's not a gay organization (or whatever). The correct answer is because while people have said that JREF should be an atheist organization, nobody has said it should be a gay organization. Therefore, no announcement on that point was necessary.

[six7s]

Nope doesn't work. You're just mixing the method with the conclusion.Great! Now you're on the way to getting it :)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Great! Now you're on the way to getting it :)
No, I've understood for some time that your thinking is confused.

Skepticism is a method for reaching a conclusion (where "conclusion" means the provisional acceptance or rejection of a proposition). Other methods might also be used to reach conclusion (note: I'm not saying it's valid to use these other methods). I've been arguing that atheism is a conclusion. One of the ways I've supported my position is by pointing out that one could use another method (other than skepticism) to reach the conclusion of atheism.

Then you say one could cast skepticism as a conclusion. That just doesn't follow.

So. . you're just pulling my leg here, right?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Got any other arguments?

Your evasion was so successful, I didn't notice until now that you didn't respond to my main question to you that I asked near the end of post 272.

If you don't want what The Atheist wants (a declaration or announcement that JREF is an atheist organization or some such), what specific change or difference do you want from the status quo?

[six7s]

I've been arguing that atheism is a conclusion.Repetition ad nauseum != an argument

[Beth]

Then you say one could cast skepticism as a conclusion. That just doesn't follow.

So. . you're just pulling my leg here, right?

Well, you could consider skepticism the conclusion of investigating the "best possible method for reaching conclusions" question.

I know what you mean though and I agree with your position.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your evasion was so successful, I didn't notice until now that you didn't respond to my main question to you that I asked near the end of post 272.

If you don't want what The Atheist wants (a declaration or announcement that JREF is an atheist organization or some such), what specific change or difference do you want from the status quo?Goodness! I've been making the same request for years including repeating it at some length in this thread and you claim I have evaded answering that question? :boggled:

Perhaps the problem is you are confusing TA's focus which I believe is specifically about the JREF's official position and my issue which is about the JREF's unofficial but still consistent position. The unofficial position is more nebulous, but I think it is nonetheless real. It's more of a reflected attitude than a mission statement.

In a nutshell, my complaint is that god beliefs are treated with a double standard compared to other woo. I would like to see real objectivity regarding god beliefs. But that ideal is far from the reality in the skeptical community including at the JREF.

Mind you I recognize the politics and don't have an argument if politics are plainly stated as the rationale for the double standard: too many people who are otherwise supporting of the rational thinking movement still have god beliefs. But I would like to see a little more clarity here.

Instead we get/give excuses:
Faith based beliefs differ from evidence based beliefs. (Of course that is true but religious faith is no different from other woo rationales.)
Religion and science answer 2 different questions. (Homeopathy and scientific evidence based medicine do as well.)

I think I'll start a new thread on the false premise we get something out of god beliefs one doesn't get from science. The problem is we don't say that same thing about other woo. Can't people who have false hope regarding a cancer cure that is a scam or the people who believe J Edwards talks to their dead loved ones make that same claim? We pay lip service to that reality, but then give the faith based beliefs a special place apart from science we don't give to other benefits of the false hope of woo beliefs.

[dglas]

So you deliberately interpret their words in the way you already know they're not intended? Do you find that to be a useful communication habit?

Is it possible you are this naive that you think the declaration that the JREF in not an atheist organization is a mere representation of a mere trivial claim - a trivial claim that could just as easily been expressed with a perfectly neutral declaration such as: "The JREF is neither a theistic nor atheistic organization?"

Instead it selects a specific group "atheists" to point at for special dissociation. Are you truly incapable of seeing the meaning behind a public declaration such as that? Well, perhaps you are...

The disingenuousness of the arguments I am seeing is a clear indication of how far you folks have lost yourselves. Why are people asking if the JREF is an atheist organization? Precisely because they want a public declaration that it is not, which serves to distance the JREF from a perfectly legitimate segment of its population. Otherwise, there would be zero motivation for the JREF to make that absurd declaration.

In short, Prometheus, I interpreted it precisely the way it was intended to be interpreted by those asking the questions Darat referenced, and the rest are excuses to justify appeasing those who want the JREF to publicly distance itself from atheists. Is that clear enough for you? Do you understand yet?

[Prometheus]

Is it possible you are this naive that you think the declaration that the JREF in not an atheist organization is a mere representation of a mere trivial claim - a trivial claim that could just as easily been expressed with a perfectly neutral declaration such as: "The JREF is neither a theistic nor atheistic organization?"

Instead it selects a specific group "atheists" to point at for special dissociation. Are you truly incapable of seeing the meaning behind a public declaration such as that? Well, perhaps you are...

The disingenuousness of the arguments I am seeing is a clear indication of how far you folks have lost yourselves. Why are people asking if the JREF is an atheist organization? Precisely because they want a public declaration that it is not, which serves to distance the JREF from a perfectly legitimate segment of its population. Otherwise, there would be zero motivation for the JREF to make that absurd declaration.

In short, Prometheus, I interpreted it precisely the way it was intended to be interpreted by those asking the questions Darat referenced, and the rest are excuses to justify appeasing those who want the JREF to publicly distance itself from atheists. Is that clear enough for you? Do you understand yet?

So the reason you're deliberately interpreting JREF's words in a way not intended by JREF is because you believe they are intended to be interpreted that way by some nebulous third party who somehow tricked the JREF into using them? Seems to me that even if you're right, all you're doing is playing into the hands of those people yourself.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Goodness! I've been making the same request for years including repeating it at some length in this thread and you claim I have evaded answering that question? :boggled:
You haven't said specifically what you want to see different about JREF here on this thread. I don't know about what you've been saying for years.


Perhaps the problem is you are confusing TA's focus which I believe is specifically about the JREF's official position and my issue which is about the JREF's unofficial but still consistent position. The unofficial position is more nebulous, but I think it is nonetheless real. It's more of a reflected attitude than a mission statement.
Yes, I understand that your position isn't the same as TA's, but I'm still not sure what you want. (I'm also not convinced this "unofficial position" exists. I also don't know what you mean by "reflected attitude". Could you elaborate?)

In a nutshell, my complaint is that god beliefs are treated with a double standard compared to other woo. I would like to see real objectivity regarding god beliefs. But that ideal is far from the reality in the skeptical community including at the JREF.
"Are treated" by whom and where? You already admitted that Randi doesn't treat religious beliefs with kid gloves. I've already pointed out that we don't shy away from discussions on religion and religious beliefs on these forums (especially the subform for Religion and Philosophy).

So where exactly does this double standard happen in JREF? The MDC is only about testable claims, so many religious ideas are off limits, but I think of those things as the same as the nutty theories behind non-religious paranormal beliefs, and the MDC isn't interested in hearing about those either.



Instead we get/give excuses:
Faith based beliefs differ from evidence based beliefs. (Of course that is true but religious faith is no different from other woo rationales.)
Religion and science answer 2 different questions. (Homeopathy and scientific evidence based medicine do as well.)
Again, where do you hear this? My impression is that the majority of us who participate on the forums reject NOMA. Also, I think the majority of us are atheists.

There is a small minority of theist/skeptics (mostly some form or another of Christian skeptics). I think their positions are inconsistent and indefensible. I also don't think they are treated with any kind of deference. In some cases (A Christian Skeptic, for example), their assertions are so bizarre, they're treated just about the same as some of our resident wackos (Kurios Kathy, Rodney, and so on).

ETA: I guess what I'm saying is, where's the evidence? And I'm not asking for specific quotes or anything, but just a description of where you see the double standard. Who's doing this and where?

I think I'll start a new thread on the false premise we get something out of god beliefs one doesn't get from science. The problem is we don't say that same thing about other woo. Can't people who have false hope regarding a cancer cure that is a scam or the people who believe J Edwards talks to their dead loved ones make that same claim? We pay lip service to that reality, but then give the faith based beliefs a special place apart from science we don't give to other benefits of the false hope of woo beliefs.
I agree with your criticisms of religion, especially as opposed to science as a way of knowing things, but I still don't see what you want out of JREF wrt to atheism. On the broader topic you're addressing, I'm 100% with you.

I just don't think JREF is or ought be an atheist organization, since atheism is a conclusion, even though (as I said in my first post on this thread) I think theism is inconsistent with skepticism.

And I'm not sure some unofficial position or double standard exists in JREF. If it exists, I haven't seen evidence of it. (Maybe it's something you only see in person at TAM? I can never afford to go to those.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Repetition ad nauseum != an argument

And that's another well-though out and reasoned response to the points I've made.

Oh wait--not it's not.

Again.

You're not even trying.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Instead it selects a specific group "atheists" to point at for special dissociation. Are you truly incapable of seeing the meaning behind a public declaration such as that? Well, perhaps you are...
We covered this already. The reason for the declaration that JREF is not an atheist organization is because people have made the case that it is or ought be.

Again, I'm an atheist. I'm even the organizer of our local atheist organization. I don't think JREF is dissociating from me, or anyone. It was just an a statement that JREF is not an atheist organization. I understand that, and it makes sense. Locally, we have a few other organizations, a skeptical group, a rationalist group and a couple of ethical societies. Of those groups, only one can accurately be called an atheist organization, even though there are many atheists in all of them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You haven't said specifically what you want to see different about JREF here on this thread. I don't know about what you've been saying for years.YES I HAVE. I get it that you don't get it. But claiming I've not made it clear what I'd like to see change is LUDICROUS!

Yes, I understand that your position isn't the same as TA's, but I'm still not sure what you want. (I'm also not convinced this "unofficial position" exists. I also don't know what you mean by "reflected attitude". Could you elaborate?)Fine. You don't believe there is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are treated by a double standard here on the JREF forum and by a fair number of people in the skeptical community. I am certain there is overwhelming evidence of a double standard when it comes to god woo. We are at an impasse.

As for the official JREF position, I addressed that. I'm talking about the practical application of the JREF principles, not the formal declarations. For example, Phil Plait, the current JREF president has a clear position of not confronting god beliefs. He has no such position about confronting other woo.


"Are treated" by whom and where? You already admitted that Randi doesn't treat religious beliefs with kid gloves. I've already pointed out that we don't shy away from discussions on religion and religious beliefs on these forums (especially the subform for Religion and Philosophy).

So where exactly does this double standard happen in JREF? The MDC is only about testable claims, so many religious ideas are off limits, but I think of those things as the same as the nutty theories behind non-religious paranormal beliefs, and the MDC isn't interested in hearing about those either. The only untestable claim about gods are those which claim gods don't do anything other than exist. Once you say your god does something, it is testable. So here is an example coming right from your own keyboard. Why do you continually refer to god beliefs as if god believers make no claims about their gods when they all make claims about their gods?

Again, where do you hear this? My impression is that the majority of us who participate on the forums reject NOMA. Also, I think the majority of us are atheists.

There is a small minority of theist/skeptics (mostly some form or another of Christian skeptics). I think their positions are inconsistent and indefensible. I also don't think they are treated with any kind of deference. In some cases (A Christian Skeptic, for example), their assertions are so bizarre, they're treated just about the same as some of our resident wackos (Kurios Kathy, Rodney, and so on).

ETA: I guess what I'm saying is, where's the evidence? And I'm not asking for specific quotes or anything, but just a description of where you see the double standard. Who's doing this and where?Is there a question of NOMA for bad medicine? bad astronomy? Any other woo at all??????????

I don't know the percentages of skeptics who buy the NOMA philosophy vs those that buy my position that it's a manufactured excuse to avoid challenging god beliefs as woo. I do agree more skeptics are atheist than not. But there are quite a few skeptic Christians on the forum you did not mention probably because they don't preach the way our resident proselytizers do.

I agree with your criticisms of religion, especially as opposed to science as a way of knowing things, but I still don't see what you want out of JREF wrt to atheism. On the broader topic you're addressing, I'm 100% with you.

I just don't think JREF is or ought be an atheist organization, since atheism is a conclusion, even though (as I said in my first post on this thread) I think theism is inconsistent with skepticism.

And I'm not sure some unofficial position or double standard exists in JREF. If it exists, I haven't seen evidence of it. (Maybe it's something you only see in person at TAM? I can never afford to go to those.)I've only been to one TAM.


If you see theism as inconsistent with skepticism, you are at least close to my position. I see no reason to label the JREF anything but an educational foundation. My beef is not with the organization's label. It's with some of the organization members' reluctance in some cases to address god woo on the same level as other woo.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rational Wiki notes the criticisms (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/NOMA) I have with the NOMA concept quite concisely.The system itself has met with some resistance and harsh criticisms from figures such as Richard Dawkins (who suggests that Gould was straining to be apologetic when he proposed it), PZ Myers and numerous other so-called new atheists. These critics propose that questions such as the existence of God can be tested just like any other material hypothesis and that, in principle, even things that are "outside our universe" are still within the grasp of human understanding and the scientific method. The reasons for this are that God's alleged effects on the material world are, of course, material and can be studied much in the same way that all science really just detects the effects of things on the real world. In this sense, critics certainly reject the "non-overlapping" aspect of the two magisteria and conclude that if the two genuinely didn't overlap, supernatural entities would have no effect on the real world and thus their existence, or not, is a moot point. The entire entry (very short) is worth reading.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Rational Wiki notes the criticisms (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/NOMA) I have with the NOMA concept quite concisely.The entire entry (very short) is worth reading.

Do you think JREF endorses NOMA? If so, what is your evidence?

My impression of the forum anyway is that the majority of us are atheists who reject NOMA and don't give any deference to religious views.

I think Kumar and Nancy Malik are treated about the same as Kurious Kathy here.

And again, you've already admitted that Randi doesn't shy away from religion. He certainly doesn't subscribe to NOMA, from what I've read. (I've just read Flim Flam, and he devotes a chapter to religious claims.) If a claim is testable, it doesn't matter what the theoretical underpinnings of that claim are.

Randi is admittedly more interested in tackling claims that purport to be evidence-based than those that are faith-based. He seems to me uninterested in making a philosophical or logical case against transubstantiation, for example. And since that claim isn't testable--that is there is no measurement you can take that would be different if the claim were true--it's not something that could be tested.

So. . . a case against NOMA doesn't support your position that JREF has some unofficial pro-theism policy or attitude of some sort.

I'm not convinced that JREF has this unofficial position or double standard you think it has, and it seems to me that the only thing you want different than the status quo is for JREF not to have this unofficial position.

[JoeTheJuggler]

YES I HAVE. I get it that you don't get it. But claiming I've not made it clear what I'd like to see change is LUDICROUS!
If it's true that you've made your position clear on this thread, then it would be a simple matter for you to quote yourself. I don't see it.



Fine. You don't believe there is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are treated by a double standard here on the JREF forum and by a fair number of people in the skeptical community. I am certain there is overwhelming evidence of a double standard when it comes to god woo. We are at an impasse.
Well yeah--unless you'd care to say what that evidence is.

As for the official JREF position, I addressed that. I'm talking about the practical application of the JREF principles, not the formal declarations. For example, Phil Plait, the current JREF president has a clear position of not confronting god beliefs. He has no such position about confronting other woo.
I'm not aware that he has that position. (ETA: I am familiar with his essay "Is Science Faith-based?" (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/)--which makes me think he rejects faith outright as a way of arriving at conclusions. I'll see what I can find of his position on NOMA or not confronting religious claims because they're religious. Update: I have a hard time accepting that he has the position you say he has since he's got one section of his blog devoted to religion (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/category/religion/)--and most of those entries seem to be confronting religious claims.) Even if so, does his position equate with JREF's?

The only untestable claim about gods are those which claim gods don't do anything other than exist. Once you say your god does something, it is testable.
I disagree. The example I just gave is a case in point. The claim that God changes a wafer into the Body of Christ but that the wafer retains all the accidents of the wafer is untestable. There is no measurement you can take that would be different if the claim were true compared to if the claim were false. (I agree it's an absurd belief--there's no reason for anyone to beleive it; it's wholly unneccessary because there is no measurement that would be different.)

So here is an example coming right from your own keyboard. Why do you continually refer to god beliefs as if god believers make no claims about their gods when they all make claims about their gods?
I don't. I've pointed out examples of testable claims, and I don't think JREF has kept quiet or avoided them. (Intercessory prayer, crying or bleeding statues, etc.)

Is there a question of NOMA for bad medicine? bad astronomy? Any other woo at all??????????
I don't follow this. Are you suggesting there aren't people who believe in bad medicine or bad astronomy? Of course there are. Kumar's back, by the way. Or do you insist that JREF endorses NOMA? If so, I'd like to see the evidence.

I don't know the percentages of skeptics who buy the NOMA philosophy vs those that buy my position that it's a manufactured excuse to avoid challenging god beliefs as woo.
It seems whenever we discuss NOMA the vast majority of us come down flat out against it.

I do agree more skeptics are atheist than not. But there are quite a few skeptic Christians on the forum you did not mention probably because they don't preach the way our resident proselytizers do.
I did mention one of them, A Christian Skeptic, I could mention also cj and probably one or two more. I think they're an extremely small minority, and I think their beliefs are inconsistent with skepticism and indefensible. I also don't think they get any special treatment.

If you see theism as inconsistent with skepticism, you are at least close to my position. I see no reason to label the JREF anything but an educational foundation. My beef is not with the organization's label. It's with some of the organization members' reluctance in some cases to address god woo on the same level as other woo.
Yes, I recognize that our disagreement is strictly over how we see JREF, and not with our own positions on atheism. I am a strong atheist, and I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis that treats theism as any other claim. That is the standard of being extremely confident in accepting or rejecting a proposition should be no different if we're considering the law of gravity, the phlogiston theory of combustion (even the existence of phlogiston), or the existence of a god or gods.

I don't think NOMA is at all a popular idea among JREF members or skeptics in general. My guess is that among skeptics, the percentage is roughly the same as the percentage of theist vs atheist research scientists.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you think JREF endorses NOMA? If so, what is your evidence?Phil Plait, the JREF president endorses it.

[The Atheist]

Phil Plait, the JREF president endorses it.

Do you evidence for that?

Noma is the biggest piece of apologetic [stuff that comes out bulls' behinds] I've seen in a long, long time.

For the system to have any meaning whatsoever, people involved must first take the position that something non-material exists which humans are part of. Wrapping appreciation of beauty in a coat made out of religious properties is a dishonest sop to religion and is not consistent with any kind of critical thinking.

If JREF endorses it, it would certainly explain why JREF is not an atheist organisation.

[a.real.girl]

Phil Plait attacks creationism and creationists constantly, I think that's an unsupported claim at best, straight-up made up at worst.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If it's true that you've made your position clear on this thread, then it would be a simple matter for you to quote yourself. I don't see it......This is really getting tiresome:

"You don't believe there is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are treated by a double standard here on the JREF forum and by a fair number of people in the skeptical community. I am certain there is overwhelming evidence of a double standard when it comes to god woo. We are at an impasse."

"As for the official JREF position, I addressed that. I'm talking about the practical application of the JREF principles, not the formal declarations. For example, Phil Plait, the current JREF president has a clear position of not confronting god beliefs. He has no such position about confronting other woo."

[Skeptic Ginger]

Phil Plait attacks creationism and creationists constantly, I think that's an unsupported claim at best, straight-up made up at worst.I've know Phil via his written opinions for years. It is not an unsupported claim but you are confusing addressing a single issue, evolution theory science, which is a very important issue to Phil and most of us, with NOMA which essentially says religion is faith based belief and science is evidence based belief and both are valid.


I'll find you some examples from his blog.

[Dunstan]

Phil Plait attacks creationism and creationists constantly, I think that's an unsupported claim at best, straight-up made up at worst.

Stephen J. Gould criticized creationists all the time, but he was still the "founder" of NOMA.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's proving to be too time consuming to find the BA comments on NOMA and his blog entries suggests Phil is shifting his position over time. He has shifted from NOMA which says you get something different from religion and science to more of a live and let live approach, you have your beliefs and I'll have mine. It's interesting when you've had discussions with people over many years involving their philosophy and point of view to see them evolve.

While maybe someone else can find the older BA blog comments, I will have to be content to just describe one in particular. The blog entry was specifically complimenting a certain science web site. On the site was a comment about their NOMA position. In the blog comments I had a long discussion on the subject. More specific than that I can't recall, but Phil's position of NOMA at the time was discussed.

Maybe I can find a link to the blog entry in a thread here. But after searching for 30 minutes through Phil's more recent blogs, it will have to wait.


Perhaps I should not consider any JREF member's position on this matter to represent the JREF, even Phil's. I wish to clarify my issue then. My issue is with the skeptics who subscribe to the double standard of NOMA for religious beliefs. I'm pleased to see people arguing here that it may be a diminishing trend.

[Wowbagger]

Almost all skeptics probably believe in something that they can't prove. For some, it is a diety. For someone like Richard Dawkins, it is cosmological evolution (The idea that the forces of physics act in ways that match biological natural selection).

As long as one does not rely on their unprovable beliefs, and as long as they are not prosthelytizing their beliefs, I don't see why they still can't be "good skeptics".

[Skeptic Ginger]

Almost all skeptics probably believe in something that they can't prove. For some, it is a diety. For someone like Richard Dawkins, it is cosmological evolution (The idea that the forces of physics act in ways that match biological natural selection).

As long as one does not rely on their unprovable beliefs, and as long as they are not prosthelytizing their beliefs, I don't see why they still can't be "good skeptics".I make no claims there are any 'perfect skeptics'. That was never my point. In fact, I actually understand god believing skeptics more than the atheists or agnostic skeptics who buy the NOMA position.

If you are a theist skeptic, you just have a simple skeptic blind spot. If you are an atheist skeptic that maintains faith based beliefs are in a different category from other woo beliefs, then I fail to see why one would take that position.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's proving to be too time consuming to find the BA comments on NOMA and his blog entries suggests Phil is shifting his position over time. He has shifted from NOMA which says you get something different from religion and science to more of a live and let live approach, you have your beliefs and I'll have mine. It's interesting when you've had discussions with people over many years involving their philosophy and point of view to see them evolve.

While maybe someone else can find the older BA blog comments, I will have to be content to just describe one in particular. The blog entry was specifically complimenting a certain science web site. On the site was a comment about their NOMA position. In the blog comments I had a long discussion on the subject. More specific than that I can't recall, but Phil's position of NOMA at the time was discussed.

Maybe I can find a link to the blog entry in a thread here. But after searching for 30 minutes through Phil's more recent blogs, it will have to wait.


Perhaps I should not consider any JREF member's position on this matter to represent the JREF, even Phil's. I wish to clarify my issue then. My issue is with the skeptics who subscribe to the double standard of NOMA for religious beliefs. I'm pleased to see people arguing here that it may be a diminishing trend.

I suspect our different perspectives on the state of JREF (and Plait in particular) is simply due to that fact that mine has less history than yours.

I'm happy to take your word for it that Plait and other skeptics used to be in favor of NOMA, but I don't think that's the case nowadays, and I don't think JREF has any particular blind spot on this issue. In fact, by and large, I think members of JREF are mostly supporters of the New Atheism.

It sounds like all of us in this discussion at least resoundingly reject NOMA. (Personally, I don't think Gould even really bought into his own idea. I don't see how anyone actually could.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Almost all skeptics probably believe in something that they can't prove. For some, it is a diety [sic]. For someone like Richard Dawkins, it is cosmological evolution (The idea that the forces of physics act in ways that match biological natural selection).
I've heard Stenger goes in for acupuncture.

(I haven't read much of Dawkins on the point you mention. The stuff I've read is more like a suspicion that one day physics might find a central organization principle similar to natural selection. Has he gone beyond that to belief in an unsupported proposition?)

As long as one does not rely on their unprovable beliefs, and as long as they are not prosthelytizing their beliefs, I don't see why they still can't be "good skeptics".
Hmmm. . that's a tricky question. I think the point of being a good skeptic is to follow the evidence all the time and to be aware that we ourselves are not immune to biased thinking. I think where we fail to do this, we aren't being "good skeptics". I suspect that most of us have a blind spot or two where we fail to be good skeptics.

But this doesn't mean JREF should be an atheist organization. Again, the reason is that atheism is a conclusion, as I've said. I don't think it's a double standard, since we can certainly use skeptical thinking to argue against theism and theistic claims the same way we can use it to argue against ESP or whatever. That is, I don't think the declaration that JREF is not an atheist organization means that we can't or shouldn't apply skepticism to god-claims.

[Soapy Sam]

It's interesting when you've had discussions with people over many years involving their philosophy and point of view to see them evolve.

Indeed. But it's perhaps more interesting to watch one's own thinking evolve.

Perhaps I should not consider any JREF member's position on this matter to represent the JREF, even Phil's.
Indeed not. Even less so forum posters, many of whom are not JREF members.

I wish to clarify my issue then. My issue is with the skeptics who subscribe to the double standard of NOMA for religious beliefs. I'm pleased to see people arguing here that it may be a diminishing trend.

I share the Atheist's contempt for the NOMA notion. The truth is that rational thought and careful note taking can study anything, whereas blowing smoke and incense merely clouds the issue and makes people sneeze.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Indeed not. Even less so forum posters, many of whom are not JREF members.
And of course that leads to the question I asked before: if this double standard or attitude is not about JREF forum posters, JREF members, Phil Plaitt or James Randi, and it's not about the issue TA is arguing (a formal declaration that it is an atheist organization) then what is it?

It seems that Skeptigirl's issue is more with skeptics in general than anything about JREF as an organization. And even so, she seems to recognize that things have changed or at least are changing.

I honestly don't see that. I don't think NOMA has ever had a big following among skeptics.

I would agree that there seems to be a lot of confusion about what atheism is--among a LOT of people. For some, it is only a very weak form of weak atheism (strictly a lack of theism, in which case it makes sense to call rocks and babies "atheists"). For others (the ones I was arguing against in one of the recent threads in the Religion subforum), it's the assertion of absolute certainty of the non-existence of God.

Personally, I don't think either of these definitions are in common usage. I think the ones given in Merriam-Webster (see earlier cite) are the most conventionally recognized two: belief in the non-existence of God (strong atheism) and disbelief (lack of or rejection of belief) in the existence of God (weak atheism).

I fully support Skeptigirl's position on strong atheism: that we ought apply the same standards of science to god-claims as we do for any other question. As such, I am just as certain of the non-existence of a god (at least in the most conventional definition--probably excepting only the deist god which I think is an undefined concept) as I am of the non-existence of phlogiston. Yet I recognize that even though I don't ever see there being evidence for the existence of either, I do not claim absolute knowledge of their non-existence simply because if the evidence for their existence came about, I would modify my belief, so it is not quite the same as absolute certainty. (NB: by this standard, absolute certainties are, by definition, dogmatic.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

A bit of a derail on NOMA:

A now out-of-state member of my local atheist group argues with me that if I reject NOMA that I should actually be in favor of the Religious Right's position to "teach the controversy" wrt to Creationism/ID. I fully admit that these religious claims about the natural world are testable by science, so why not use elementary and secondary public school science classes to debunk Creationism?

I have 2 answers and one is sort of a cop-out (and I suspect the real thinking of Gould behind NOMA).

First, the cop-out: if we allow "teach the controversy" in schools, I doubt very much that ALL teachers would see it as a way to apply the scientific method to the claims of Creationism/ID. Instead, it would be an "in" for those who would preach their religious doctrine. Given Gould's history of opposition to allowing Creationism (in any of its various guises) into public schools, I think his motive for NOMA was trying to give some sort of justification for keeping a topic which does indeed make claims about the natural world out of science classes. (I think the route he should have taken was to argue the issue as a matter of separation of Church and State.)

Second: we don't generally teach science in this way at these levels. That is, we don't actually conduct research. (Similarly, kids don't usually have to derive the formulas they will use in math classes at this level.) It would be no more appropriate than teaching the "controversy" of Lamarckism--or even of teaching the latest not yet proven scientific hypotheses. At lower levels, we mostly teach the body of knowledge gleaned by science and the scientific method. Now if a kid wanted to test a religious claim as a project designed to teach the scientific method (or experimental design or hypothesis testing), then I would be cool with that.

[Wowbagger]

What I don't like about NOMA is the implication that some questions should only be answered by one magisterium than the other.

Why can't science develop answers for every question?! (Even if some people choose to develop supplementary answers with faith?)

[JoeTheJuggler]

What I don't like about NOMA is the implication that some questions should only be answered by one magisterium than the other.

Why can't science develop answers for every question?! (Even if some people choose to develop supplementary answers with faith?)

Exactly.

And looking at it historically, pretty much everything that is now in the science "magisterium" was once in the religion/witch doctor magisterium, so we know for sure NOMA is false.

[Skeptic Ginger]

A bit of a derail on NOMA:

A now out-of-state member of my local atheist group argues with me that if I reject NOMA that I should actually be in favor of the Religious Right's position to "teach the controversy" wrt to Creationism/ID. I fully admit that these religious claims about the natural world are testable by science, so why not use elementary and secondary public school science classes to debunk Creationism?....Teach the controversy is a straw man. Science does teach controversy when it is real. In evolution theory the controversy is not based on science and is not actually real. If it were real, science would of course welcome it.

[dglas]

We covered this already. The reason for the declaration that JREF is not an atheist organization is because people have made the case that it is or ought be.

Again, I'm an atheist. I'm even the organizer of our local atheist organization. I don't think JREF is dissociating from me, or anyone. It was just an a statement that JREF is not an atheist organization. I understand that, and it makes sense. Locally, we have a few other organizations, a skeptical group, a rationalist group and a couple of ethical societies. Of those groups, only one can accurately be called an atheist organization, even though there are many atheists in all of them.

Clearly, raising consciousness among some is going to be more of a challenge than among others.

Can you recognize that "The JREF is neither a theistic nor atheistic organization?" has a different content than "The JREF is not an atheist organization?" Do you have that simple acuity? Can you comprehend any import in the difference? I note that it could have been worded, "The JREF is not an exclusively atheist organization." or "The JREF is an organization for theists and atheists alike." Hmmm.

I can see a difference, and it is not my failing if neither you nor Prometheus can (although, honestly, I think both of you are just refusing to consider the subject matter, opting instead for a knee-jerk defensive, fanboy entrenchment). I have been present in chat when a deist, familiar to us all and close to the throne, has commented on the importance of funds from religious sources and has spoken of strategies for making the JREF more palatable to these sources.

To the atheist:
Interesting that you should protest so. Let's see, two identifiable groups of people (gays and atheists) both suffering societal condemnation and struggling for legitimacy, and against exclusion. They sound very similar in very salient ways - at least for this conversation. Should we consider your user name a sign that you have "outed" yourself? I suppose you've never heard that expression with respect to atheists before, have you? Or perhaps you do not get the reference...

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you recognize that "The JREF is neither a theistic nor atheistic organization?" has a different content than "The JREF is not an atheist organization?"
Is there anyone who thinks the JREF is a theistic organization? (Really, we went over this.) The statement was made because some people thought JREF is or ought be an atheistic organization.

Since no one thinks JREF is a theistic organization, making a statement that it is not is no more necessary than making a statement that JREF is not a men's club either.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Teach the controversy is a straw man. Science does teach controversy when it is real. In evolution theory the controversy is not based on science and is not actually real. If it were real, science would of course welcome it.

I agree. And I think pointing out that creationism vs. evolution is not a scientific controversy is key to refuting my friend's approach.

[zooterkin]

To the atheist:
Interesting that you should protest so. Let's see, two identifiable groups of people (gays and atheists) both suffering societal condemnation and struggling for legitimacy, and against exclusion. They sound very similar in very salient ways - at least for this conversation. Should we consider your user name a sign that you have "outed" yourself? I suppose you've never heard that expression with respect to atheists before, have you? Or perhaps you do not get the reference...

Not a very close analogy, I'm afraid. In my country, and, I'm pretty sure, The Atheist's, atheists are not in that position.

[Prometheus]

...I can see a difference, and it is not my failing if neither you nor Prometheus can (although, honestly, I think both of you are just refusing to consider the subject matter, opting instead for a knee-jerk defensive, fanboy entrenchment). I have been present in chat when a deist, familiar to us all and close to the throne, has commented on the importance of funds from religious sources and has spoken of strategies for making the JREF more palatable to these sources....


The difference you keep pointing out is obvious. The fact that several here keep saying in various ways that it's not important to us for a variety of reasons seems utterly lost on you. The implication you keep making that our disagreement with your position must result either from a reading comprehension problem or a "knee-jerk defensive, fanboy entrenchment" is an obvious false dichotomy.

FWIW, I'd guess, based on very sparse evidence that's available to me, that you're probably correct in your implication that JREF's statement is deliberately aimed at courting favour with theists. So what?

If something as simple and innocuous as this statement is enough to get certain theists to donate money, and perhaps others to participate in the forum, that sounds like a win for the JREF and it's mission to me. If it also results in driving away individuals who are unwilling to approach this topic unemotionally, then that's too bad, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

By responding in the way that you do, you are only giving the theists you apparently hate exactly what you seem to think they want. Where's the sense in that?

[Earthborn]

Why can't science develop answers for every question?!Because some questions are not scientific? While I think it is fair to say that the magisteria are not perfectly non-overlapping, and do sometimes intrude on each other's fields, to me it seems that during the development of both science and religion and the thinking about them, both tend to become less overlapping. Major religions make fewer falsifiable claims than they used to, and science steers away from the unfalsifiable.

[Wowbagger]

Because some questions are not scientific? Can you name some pertinent examples?

[Wowbagger]

I don't know if this was brought up, yet, but I recalled that TAM 4 actually had a panel discussion asking "Can a Skeptic Believe in God?", and it was preceded by Hal Bidlack giving a speech about his personal views of deism.

Here are three quotes, from Hal, that are most relevant in answering the question about JREF. These could be found between the time codes of 2:27 and 2:29 on the TAM4 DVD Disc #4.


It seems to me that whenever a person makes a testable claim, be it about dowsing or bending keys or talking to a dead relative... we are in the realm of things where the JREF challenge makes sense, but Mr. Randi does not attempt to test the untestable.


(snip)


I believe that Mr. Randi is very wise to set religious matters aside, for the most part, and in the formal work of the JREF. As the core claims of faith are inherently not testable, there is little to be gained by wading through that minefield.


And, I know some of you will just love this one (emphasis mine):


The JREF relies on voluntary contributions to keep going, and the vast majority of the potential donor base does not embrace atheism. And, one of my concerns is making sure that the JREF can pay the light bill.


I also tried to mine for quotes from the actual panel, but nothing was as relevant to this thread as the things Hal said, that I quoted.

[A.A. Alfie]

... "vast majority"....
interesting

Watch the seagulls swoop on that chip.
Let the squabbling begin....

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because some questions are not scientific? While I think it is fair to say that the magisteria are not perfectly non-overlapping, and do sometimes intrude on each other's fields, to me it seems that during the development of both science and religion and the thinking about them, both tend to become less overlapping. Major religions make fewer falsifiable claims than they used to, and science steers away from the unfalsifiable.And then wny not put all woo into the religion category, call it NOMA and go our merry way, disband the JREF.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know if this was brought up, yet, but I recalled that TAM 4 actually had a panel discussion asking "Can a Skeptic Believe in God?", and it was preceded by Hal Bidlack giving a speech about his personal views of deism.

Here are three quotes, from Hal, that are most relevant in answering the question about JREF. These could be found between the time codes of 2:27 and 2:29 on the TAM4 DVD Disc #4.


It seems to me that whenever a person makes a testable claim, be it about dowsing or bending keys or talking to a dead relative... we are in the realm of things where the JREF challenge makes sense, but Mr. Randi does not attempt to test the untestable.


(snip)


I believe that Mr. Randi is very wise to set religious matters aside, for the most part, and in the formal work of the JREF. As the core claims of faith are inherently not testable, there is little to be gained by wading through that minefield.


And, I know some of you will just love this one (emphasis mine):


The JREF relies on voluntary contributions to keep going, and the vast majority of the potential donor base does not embrace atheism. And, one of my concerns is making sure that the JREF can pay the light bill.


I also tried to mine for quotes from the actual panel, but nothing was as relevant to this thread as the things Hal said, that I quoted.Claiming god beliefs are untestable is an attempt to move the goal post off the playing field. But it results in two problems.

1) The only god beliefs that make no claims are those which people who are otherwise looking for evidence have defined their gods so that no one can challenge the belief.

And 2) It fails the logic test. If a god does not interact with the Universe, (aka an untestable god), then there is no way for any humans to be aware of said god. A god who makes its presence known is interacting with the Universe.


Deism is a skeptic's exercise in not being able to let go of god despite the overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings. It is the classical fitting the evidence to the belief rather than following the evidence to the conclusion.

[Wowbagger]

Deism is a skeptic's exercise in not being able to let go of god despite the overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings. It is the classical fitting the evidence to the belief rather than following the evidence to the conclusion.But, one can still be a skeptic towards all other types of woo, (some of which would more likely cause harm if they weren't skeptical), even if that is the case.

A deist can still: Fight against the anti-vax movement, debunk alien landings, promote proper practice of the scientific method, embrace evolutionary biology, reject quackery, hold their own in a conversation among other skeptics, and donate money to the JREF; etc.

Not that I'm a deist, though. But, Hal Bidlack is a good example of what it's possible for a deist to achieve in the skeptical world. I also know a few other deists, who also make good contributions to the organization and the skeptical "movement" in general.


ETA: Deists can also fight against religious claims that are testable, such as the "power" of prayer, or the "healing powers" of Jesus Christ's tears.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you name some pertinent examples?

The claim that the consecrated host is the body of Christ even though it retains all the accidents of the host is not testable. Any measurement you take looks the same whether the claim is true or false. (Of course, since there is no evidence FOR the claim, it's a silly thing to believe.)

Another example, "Is an unabsolved but baptized Christian in a state of grace?"

Similarly, most claims of "goddidit" are untestable. Even when we can prove beyond any doubt what the necessary and sufficient cause of something is, they simply shift "goddidit" to that.

Claims that are purely supernatural (whether an archangel is closer to God than a seraph, for example, or the number of gifts of the Holy Spirit).

They're untestable the way Carl Sagan's invisible, weightless, odorless and otherwise wholly undetectable dragon is untestable. There's no measurable or detectable difference whether the claim is true or false.

Even laying aside the testability issue, there is the issue that some religious claims are purely based on faith--that is they don't even claim there is any evidence for their beliefs. (That's why I say theism is fundamentally inconsistent with skepticism. Faith is a method for reaching conclusions that is completely antithetical to skepticism and critical thinking.)

Many of the paranormal claims that Randi was most concerned with when he first established the Challenge actually fooled academics. These claims came with claims of scientific validity. So I don't think there's any double standard operating when those are the things Randi and the JREF most often focus on.

From the Flim Flam chapter on religious claims (titled "Gods with Feats of Clay"):

The subject of religion hardly belongs in this book, but certain aspects must be included. The very nature of religion dictates that it need not offer or claim scientific proof of its teachings. (Philosophical proof is another matter.) Occasionally some sect or other ventures to produce scientific proof, and this makes it a legitimate target for questions that probe such claims. Some religions have used outright deception in the same way that less respectable individuals and groups have done. These are part of our examination, and quite properly so.

So it seems Randi limits his attention to religious claims of scientific proof or those that engage in deception. I don't think this is an espousal of NOMA; nor do I think his record (or that of JREF) is any kind of double standard.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But, one can still be a skeptic towards all other types of woo, (some of which would more likely cause harm if they weren't skeptical), even if that is the case.

A deist can still: Fight against the anti-vax movement, debunk alien landings, promote proper practice of the scientific method, embrace evolutionary biology, reject quackery, hold their own in a conversation among other skeptics, and donate money to the JREF; etc.

Not that I'm a deist, though. But, Hal Bidlack is a good example of what it's possible for a deist to achieve in the skeptical world. I also know a few other deists, who also make good contributions to the organization and the skeptical "movement" in general.


ETA: Deists can also fight against religious claims that are testable, such as the "power" of prayer, or the "healing powers" of Jesus Christ's tears.

This is all true, but the issue at hand, the god-belief is still one that cannot be reached by the application of skepticism or critical thinking. It's an article of faith. Again, you could claim these are "good skeptics" on issues other than their god belief, but that's an awful big issue to look beyond.

I guess it's like saying, aside from owning slaves, X was a great proponent of freedom. People can argue that Thomas Jefferson did much to advance freedom, but he was nevertheless a slave owner.

[Peter i]

And, I know some of you will just love this one (emphasis mine):


The JREF relies on voluntary contributions to keep going, and the vast majority of the potential donor base does not embrace atheism. And, one of my concerns is making sure that the JREF can pay the light bill.


I also tried to mine for quotes from the actual panel, but nothing was as relevant to this thread as the things Hal said, that I quoted.

Nice one!

From the start reading this thread I had the thought that JREF is based in America, and the "one nation under Gawd"-thing could play a role.
:jaw-dropp

"Being rational and sceptic is OK, but don't you dare question Jeebus"

[Skeptic Ginger]

But, one can still be a skeptic towards all other types of woo, (some of which would more likely cause harm if they weren't skeptical), even if that is the case.

A deist can still: Fight against the anti-vax movement, debunk alien landings, promote proper practice of the scientific method, embrace evolutionary biology, reject quackery, hold their own in a conversation among other skeptics, and donate money to the JREF; etc.

Not that I'm a deist, though. But, Hal Bidlack is a good example of what it's possible for a deist to achieve in the skeptical world. I also know a few other deists, who also make good contributions to the organization and the skeptical "movement" in general.


ETA: Deists can also fight against religious claims that are testable, such as the "power" of prayer, or the "healing powers" of Jesus Christ's tears.I've never suggested skeptics with blind spots don't belong here. In fact I said, I doubt any of us are perfect skeptics.


It surprises me that with the majority on the forum being atheist or agnostic that the donor base would be more theist than not. Or does that quote refer to agnostics?

[Skeptic Ginger]

The claim that the consecrated host is the body of Christ even though it retains all the accidents of the host is not testable. Any measurement you take looks the same whether the claim is true or false. (Of course, since there is no evidence FOR the claim, it's a silly thing to believe.)

Another example, "Is an unabsolved but baptized Christian in a state of grace?"This is like saying there's an invisible dragon in the garage.

It fails the logic test many people thinking along the lines as you are don't think to apply. If these conditions or invisible things are as you say, then how are you aware of them? It is not logical something that looks the same while someone knows they are not the same but without any evidence. Claims need to be testable but they also need to be logical. If you throw logic out then you can say homeopathy works. Your claim does not need evidence, all you need do is make the claim and say it is untestable.

[Earthborn]

Can you name some pertinent examples?Sure.

"At which point does a foetus become a person worthy of protection?"
"Is it moral for a hungry person to steal a loaf of bread?"
"What is the purpose of life?"
"Who should I vote for?"
"Should I eat another piece of chocolate cake?"

[Earthborn]

And then wny not put all woo into the religion category, call it NOMA and go our merry way, disband the JREF.Because some woo is scientifically testable.

Claims need to be testable but they also need to be logical.If they are scientific claims, yes. But trying to apply the criteria of one magisterium on the issues of another magisterium and concluding that it doesn't make sense, doesn't prove NOMA wrong. Quite the opposite, it shows how the tools from one cannot apply to the other; and therefore that they could be considered non-overlapping.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is like saying there's an invisible dragon in the garage.

It fails the logic test many people thinking along the lines as you are don't think to apply. If these conditions or invisible things are as you say, then how are you aware of them?
I agree that god claims and Sagan's invisible dragon are vulnerable to logical refutation. However, awareness of something is not a prerequisite for that thing's existence. (In fact, I've made that very argument against someone who claims that extra terrestrial intelligences must not exist since we have no evidence of them.)

It is not logical something that looks the same while someone knows they are not the same but without any evidence. Claims need to be testable but they also need to be logical. If you throw logic out then you can say homeopathy works. Your claim does not need evidence, all you need do is make the claim and say it is untestable.

But the claims of homeopathy are testable.

I agree, by the standard of faith, evidence is irrelevant. And the only safe haven for faith-based claims are those that are untestable. And I agree (so does Randi in the Flim Flam quote I just provided) that we can approach them using logic (what Randi called "philosophical proof"). I also think we ought do that, and JREF has provided us with a forum where we can do that. Randi has never seemed too interested in making philosophical arguments.

My point was merely that there's no double standard going on. Randi went after claims that were either claimed to be supported by science or the ones that he was able to expose as fraud (Popoff, for example). He only opened the Challenge to claims that are testable (and not even all of those--ethics precludes testing some claims). It just so happens that more pseudoscience and parapsychological claims fall into that category than do religious claims.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Frankly, I don't buy that the JREF is kowtowing to theistic donors. Even Bidlack's quote doesn't say that ("do not embrace atheism" isn't necessarily the same as "are theist"), and his statement is far from evidence of what he says.

Randi's emphasis of investigation hasn't changed dramatically (or even noticeably?) since before the founding of JREF in 1996.

[Wowbagger]

Earthborn, each of your examples might be primarily answered by the "faith magisterium" (or whatever), by most people, today. But, there is no reason why science can not grant us insight into them. At least in principal, (and I suspect in practice, as time marches on).
"At which point does a foetus become a person worthy of protection?" Science shows us that there is not a single "point" to worry about, but rather a gradual process of development, that deserves a gradual issuance of protection. Where the "lines" of such protections are drawn can change over time, depending on human interest and need, and of course: further scientific research.

"Is it moral for a hungry person to steal a loaf of bread?" Game theory can give us insight into the risks vs. rewards of stealing something, for both the individual and the society at large. We can mold and shape our moral codes and laws based on what works out most efficiently, mathematically. Much of biological evolution is based on this kind of stuff.

Social sciences could also give us some insight, perhaps in a more general, less mathematically specific way.

"What is the purpose of life?" Life emerged as a consequence of natural forces acting on naturally occurring self-replicating systems. Our "purpose", if there is one, is ultimately determined by our evolutionary heritage. Which basically amounts to "reproduction!!!!", for the most part.

How your genes helped you develop their own, specific survival strategies for doing so, is largely based on the particulars of both your genetic heritage and the particulars of your environment. And, sometimes this results in life forms that do not reproduce. But, even then we can trace the reasons why back to all those particulars.

Any other "purpose" one can say they have stems from all that stuff.

"Who should I vote for?" The candidate with the best science policies.

"Should I eat another piece of chocolate cake?" Like the "stealing bread" example, science can help us measure the risks and rewards for eating yet another piece of chocolate cake. The social implications might not be quite as relevant as the other example; but one can measure the caloric intake and weigh it against the happiness they would feel about eating it, etc.

You might argue that few people are going to pull out calculators to actually go through with all the science stuff. But, my point is that science can still answer these questions, in principal. They are not "faith only".



ETA: JoeTheJuggler's examples were better, but less relevant to anything that really matters.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Science shows us that there is not a single "point" to worry about, but rather a gradual process of development, that deserves a gradual issuance of protection. Where the "lines" of such protections are drawn can change over time, depending on human interest and need, and of course: further scientific research.

And even so, most of these questions at best point to separate magisteria between science and philosophy/ethics rather than establishing a realm exclusive to religion.

Your broader point is the one that matters: everything that is considered to be in the science magisterium today was once in that of religion--all of it. There's no reason to think ethics and morality will forever beyond the grasp of science. We've already made some big advances in that area (showing which brain structures and pathways are used in moral reasoning, identifying the mirror neurons, etc.)

ETA: JoeTheJuggler's examples were better, but less relevant to anything that really matters.
I was just responding to the charge that there are no such thing as untestable religious claims. I agree that untestable claims are absurd--there's no reason to believe them precisely because any measurement you take will look just as you would expect if the claim was false. (At that point, Occam's Razor kicks in.)

ETA: I wonder if we should start a separate thread to discuss NOMA since we're now drifting pretty far off the topic of this thread.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because some woo is scientifically testable.

If they are scientific claims, yes. But trying to apply the criteria of one magisterium on the issues of another magisterium and concluding that it doesn't make sense, doesn't prove NOMA wrong. Quite the opposite, it shows how the tools from one cannot apply to the other; and therefore that they could be considered non-overlapping.I addressed this already.

If you are claiming religion answers questions science does not, that is bull. Religion does not answer those questions either. Science can, however, tell us why we choose certain answers but not what the answer should be. Religion merely reflects the answers we choose in most cases. In a few cases religion is the source of indoctrination which influences an answer to those questions. But it does not provide the answer to the question in the sense you are describing.

If you are claiming that certain religious questions don't make testable claims, that is also bull. Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical. How would anyone be aware of a god that does not do anything testable?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree that god claims and Sagan's invisible dragon are vulnerable to logical refutation. However, awareness of something is not a prerequisite for that thing's existence. (In fact, I've made that very argument against someone who claims that extra terrestrial intelligences must not exist since we have no evidence of them.)This is not analogous. Life exists in the Universe. We are it. So there is a logical reason to hypothesize life exists elsewhere in the Universe besides on planet Earth.

Awareness of something is a different issue. Claiming you are aware a god exists says that god interacted with the Universe.


But the claims of homeopathy are testable.So are god claims. If one claims gods are [x] or gods do [x], that is testable. If one claims gods exist but do nothing, it is illogical one could be aware of such a god.



My point was merely that there's no double standard going on. ...The double standard is not in the fact no one within the JREF is arguing against god beliefs or the JREF isn't equally concerned with false god belief claims.

The double standard is only with JREF members and/or other skeptics who put god woo into a special category. Claiming god beliefs are untestable when they are either testable claims or illogical claims, and, claiming faith based belief serves a different purpose from science as if that means god woo is different from other woo.

[Earthborn]

But it does not provide the answer to the question in the sense you are describing.I don't think I have been describing "any sense in answering questions." You must be confusing me with someone else. All I have been saying is that some questions are not scientific questions and therefore belong outside the magisterium of science.

If you are claiming that certain religious questions don't make testable claims, that is also bull.Some questions, among them religious questions make no testable claims. I don't see how you can deny this.

Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical.Again you are applying the criteria from the magisterium of science to that of religion where it doesn't belong. A scientific claim needs to be logical, a god belief does not need to be logical.

[Earthborn]

But, my point is that science can still answer these questions, in principal.Science can't answer them, and your so called answers show how it can't. Your responses go to absurd lengths to avoid answering the questions, and that is the only thing science can do: gather more scientific data, usually making the questions harder to answer instead of easier. It is pretty much always harder to make an informed decision than an uninformed one.

"These are the risks, these are the benefits. What do you want to do?" is not an answer to "what should I do?" It may be that there is no single answer, and the choice is arbitrary.

They are not "faith only".I didn't claim they are faith only. I claimed they are not scientific. Surely you don't want to claim that everything is scientific -- even pseudo-scientific woo?

[Earthborn]

The double standard is only with JREF members and/or other skeptics who put god woo into a special category.The double standard is not necessarily a problem. It only becomes a problem when one thinks the standards of one magisterium apply to another. For example if one claims empirical evidence for a particular type of woo, or if one claims that scientific standards apply to non-empirical personal beliefs.

Claiming god beliefs are untestable when they are either testable claims or illogical claims, and, claiming faith based belief serves a different purpose from scienceFaith based beliefs serve a different purpose than science does. They serve primarily emotional needs.

as if that means god woo is different from other woo.I think that's what it means. God beliefs are either testable or "illogical" (assuming scientific premises), but testability and logic are different things. JREF offers a million dollars to things that are testable (logical or illogical), but it doesn't offer a million dollars to things that are logical or illogical (that are untestable). Some "god woo" is therefore different from other woo.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you are claiming religion answers questions science does not, that is bull. Religion does not answer those questions either.

Well they do answer these questions. The answers just aren't evidence-based (they're faith based). In fact, the way Catholic catechism (http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson01.html) used to be taught was a series of questions and answers.

The answers that make claims about the natural world are most often flat out wrong. The ones that make claims that aren't testable (see above) are just things that we have no reason whatsoever to believe. (Sagan's dragon in the garage.)

Science can, however, tell us why we choose certain answers but not what the answer should be. Religion merely reflects the answers we choose in most cases. In a few cases religion is the source of indoctrination which influences an answer to those questions. But it does not provide the answer to the question in the sense you are describing.
I would go farther than that. First, as I mentioned recently, separating questions on morality does not carve out a niche for religion. (There are any number of atheistic philosophical approaches to answering moral questions.) And second, science can and is answering the broader questions about morality (like how it evolved, what brain structures are involved, etc.)

If you are claiming that certain religious questions don't make testable claims, that is also bull. Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical. How would anyone be aware of a god that does not do anything testable?
I dunno. . .divine revelation, teaching authority, personal subjective mystical experience, etc. I agree that believing these things isn't reasonable (anymore than it is to believe in the existence of Sagan's dragon), but I'm not sure that's the same as illogical. (Though I would agree that at least most well-defined claims like this are also illogical--the way a 4 sided triangle is illogical.)

[Wowbagger]

Your responses go to absurd lengths to avoid answering the questions,My answers were just as general as your questions.

For example, you asked: "Is it moral for a hungry person to steal a loaf of bread?", so I offered a general strategy for how science can answer that type of question.

If you want to be more specific, and ask something like: "It is moral for Joe Schmoington, who is impoverished and very hungry, to steal a loaf of bread, given the socio-economic climate he is in, perhaps one where the government makes alternatives such as soup kitchens difficult to establish?", etc., we can calculate that! The more variables you put in, the more specific the question is, and the more specifically science can answer it.

In some cases, such as attaching rights to a fetus, we are still in relatively early stages of understanding embryology and evo/devo and all that stuff. But, the more science understands the situation, the more specific its answers will become, over time.

and that is the only thing science can do: gather more scientific data, usually making the questions harder to answer instead of easier. It is pretty much always harder to make an informed decision than an uninformed one. I agree that it is harder. But, that is not the issue. The answers are also more accurate when they are more informed.

If you are going to argue that they should not be scientific questions, you have to address why science can reliably answer them, even if it takes a lot more effort.

I agree with JoeTheJuggler: Every question that is now scientific was once considered religious. Every one of them! As science progresses, it eats up more and more of religion's questions for itself. I see no reason why we could not have good, solid empirical answers for moral questions, one day.

I didn't claim they are faith only. I claimed they are not scientific. Surely you don't want to claim that everything is scientific -- even pseudo-scientific woo? Or whatever the non-science magisterium is called.

Pseudo-scientific woo often makes testable claims. They usually fail those tests, and quite miserably so. But, the claims can still, often, be tackled by science, none-the-less.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So are god claims. If one claims gods are [x] or gods do [x], that is testable.

How do you test the claim, for example, that god's grace offers eternal salvation? Where the claims are testable (intercessory prayer, faith healing, etc.), I don't think JREF has shied away from them.

If one claims gods exist but do nothing, it is illogical one could be aware of such a god.
Again, awareness of something by an observer isn't a prerequisite to the thing's existence. (There are plenty of people who have no awareness of me, but I exist!) I agree though that it is wholly unreasonable to believe in something when you have no evidence (no reason to believe) the thing exists. It's only illogical to believe the existence of a thing if the thing's existence presents a logical contradiction (like 4 sided triangles or a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and all-compassionate given the existence of pain and suffering in the world).



The double standard is not in the fact no one within the JREF is arguing against god beliefs or the JREF isn't equally concerned with false god belief claims.
But I don't think that's being done. I understand it would seem that way if your position that all god claims are testable were true, but it's not.


The double standard is only with JREF members and/or other skeptics who put god woo into a special category. Claiming god beliefs are untestable when they are either testable claims or illogical claims, and, claiming faith based belief serves a different purpose from science as if that means god woo is different from other woo.
But JREF isn't about making logical arguments, but rather actual controlled tests/demonstrations of claims. That's a position that is consistent (JREF has never been interested in the theory behind a claim). So if you accept that some claims aren't testable, it's not especially relevant that there is what Randi calls "philosophical proof" or disproof of these untestable claims.

And back to the issue of what we mean by what kind of organization JREF is, I think the majority of members consider these philosophical arguments to be a done deal (decided in favor of atheism). The forums certainly have no dearth of arguments about logical "proofs" of god. And I think the theists in the crowd (many of whom aren't JREF members) are an extreme minority and can't be said to be reflective of JREF.

I just don't see a double standard. I'm still willing to take your word that Phil Plaitt is pro-NOMA, but I'm becoming less certain since you seem to think anyone who accepts that there are untestable claims is pro NOMA.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Pseudo-scientific woo often makes testable claims. They usually fail those tests, and quite miserably so. But, the claims can still, often, be tackled by science, none-the-less.

They also make untestable claims. For example, Uri Geller's claims of PK powers that only work if you don't look too closely is untestable. Unrecorded predictions (precognition or clairvoyance or whatever) announced after the fact are untestable.

[The Atheist]

... in principal...

Ah, the old problem of the principles of principals.

Since I've got my Grammar tag back again, I feel forced to note that you're talking about principles. They may well be the principal ones, but they're "le".

(Bloody excellent argument too - you're right on the money)

[Wowbagger]

Ah, the old problem of the principles of principals.Oh yeah?! We'll see how Prince Apoles feels about that!!

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think I have been describing "any sense in answering questions." You must be confusing me with someone else. All I have been saying is that some questions are not scientific questions and therefore belong outside the magisterium of science.

Some questions, among them religious questions make no testable claims. I don't see how you can deny this.

Again you are applying the criteria from the magisterium of science to that of religion where it doesn't belong. A scientific claim needs to be logical, a god belief does not need to be logical.You have to understand here that I have a particular point of view that I recognize not everyone holds, but at the same time, I am confident my view is supportable. That view is what I posted: "Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical."

Once a person says a god exists, if you don't inquire further, you can say that declaration makes no testable claim.

I don't see it that way because I see the logical path there which says if you make such a claim, you are also claiming that you know about the god's existence. If a god exists but doesn't interact with the Universe, one cannot test for the existence of that god. But by the same token, one has no way of being aware of the existence of such a god.

The person who says he knows a god exists or believes it for [xyz] reason, has now made a testable claim. That god made its presence known. We should be able to test that claim.

[A.A. Alfie]

You have to understand here that I have a particular point of view that I recognize not everyone holds, but at the same time, I am confident my view is supportable. That view is what I posted: "Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical."

Once a person says a god exists, if you don't inquire further, you can say that declaration makes no testable claim.

I don't see it that way because I see the logical path there which says if you make such a claim, you are also claiming that you know about the god's existence. If a god exists but doesn't interact with the Universe, one cannot test for the existence of that god. But by the same token, one has no way of being aware of the existence of such a god.

The person who says he knows a god exists or believes it for [xyz] reason, has now made a testable claim. That god made its presence known. We should be able to test that claim.

This makes sense to me now SG.

But how does one test what is in ones heart?
my emphasis

[Skeptic Ginger]

The double standard is not necessarily a problem. It only becomes a problem when one thinks the standards of one magisterium apply to another. For example if one claims empirical evidence for a particular type of woo, or if one claims that scientific standards apply to non-empirical personal beliefs.I don't buy the concept of NOMa. So for me, this is not correct. I see no reason to split the Universe into real and some nebulous anything goes as long as you don't make a testable claim side of the Universe.

There are 2 concepts at least where something may exist that is outside the realm of science. We have no way of observing something outside the Universe or even if an outside the Universe exists and the same goes for anything from before the Big Bang. I have no way of knowing those two things.

So what if there was a god outside the Universe or before the BB or not? So what if there are invisible unicorns or multiverses? The answer, so nothing. Why discuss gods anymore than invisible pink unicorns outside the Universe?

Faith based beliefs serve a different purpose than science does. They serve primarily emotional needs.Hope that some quackery will affect a terminal cancer serves an emotional need as well.

I'm only arguing to drop the double standard. I'm not arguing all false beliefs are bad. Why didn't you include the benefit of other placebos and emotional comforts in that statement?


I think that's what it means. God beliefs are either testable or "illogical" (assuming scientific premises), but testability and logic are different things. JREF offers a million dollars to things that are testable (logical or illogical), but it doesn't offer a million dollars to things that are logical or illogical (that are untestable). Some "god woo" is therefore different from other woo.Again, treat god beliefs the same way you treat invisible pink unicorn beliefs and I'll be satisfied. I don't buy it however, that people who are agnostic about gods are truly equally agnostic about invisible pink unicorns.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well they do answer these questions. The answers just aren't evidence-based (they're faith based). In fact, the way Catholic catechism (http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson01.html) used to be taught was a series of questions and answers.But the answers are not faith based, they are people based. So why carve out a faith based anything unless you recognize faith based is just as human based as, "because I said so".

[JoeTheJuggler]

You have to understand here that I have a particular point of view that I recognize not everyone holds, but at the same time, I am confident my view is supportable. That view is what I posted: "Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical."
I would agree with that statement, at least within some limits.

But, that doesn't mean JREF has some sort of double standard. I've shown that Randi in particular and JREF in the MDC isn't interested in matters of logical proofs. They're all about empirical testing or inductive reasoning.

Thus, the difference is one that's between testable and untestable claims and not one that's between religious vs. non-religious claims.



I don't see it that way because I see the logical path there which says if you make such a claim, you are also claiming that you know about the god's existence. If a god exists but doesn't interact with the Universe, one cannot test for the existence of that god. But by the same token, one has no way of being aware of the existence of such a god.
Yes, you've said this before, and I've said before that awareness of a thing is not a prerequisite for the existence of that thing. The deist god claim is just what you describe, a god that doesn't interact with the universe and that no one can have any evidence of.


The person who says he knows a god exists or believes it for [xyz] reason, has now made a testable claim. That god made its presence known. We should be able to test that claim.
I disagree. How can you test a generic claim for the existence of god? (One that is not accompanied by any other claim?)

Or what about the accompanying claims of the sort I mentioned before? For examples: "God can magically change the wafer into the body of Christ but make the wafer retain all the accidents of the wafer" or "an archangel is closer to God than a seraph".

I agree there's no evidence to support these claims, but faith is pretty much by definition not evidence-based. I also agree that it's silly and unreasonable to believe things when there is no evidence of them. However, it doesn't make the claim illogical--not unless there is a contradiction (what illogical means) within the concept or between the claim and something measurable or observable.

[JoeTheJuggler]

But the answers are not faith based, they are people based. So why carve out a faith based anything unless you recognize faith based is just as human based as, "because I said so".
I agree with you that there is absolutely no reason to believe these things. I agree that they're silly and unreasonable things to believe.

However, they are answers to questions. Some of the answers are testable (and we know them to be wrong). Some answers are untestable, though susceptible to disproof by logic (what Randi calls "philosophical proof"). I think JREF is only interested in testable claims and not in disproof by logic.

At any rate, the distinction between testable and untestable claims does not line up with non-religious vs. religious claims. Many untestable claims are religious, but not all.

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do you test the claim, for example, that god's grace offers eternal salvation? Where the claims are testable (intercessory prayer, faith healing, etc.), I don't think JREF has shied away from them.Once you tell me how god communicates with you, we can test that. If you are making no testable claim, how do you know anything about god?

For example, Christians claim god speaks to them through the Bible. But you can easily show the Bible is of human origin. There is no special knowledge, it fits only the culture that wrote it, there are equivalent texts for other religions in other regions of the world, the Bible stories resemble oral mythology out of Africa and so on.

Name me another way god communicates.

It would appear you are just willing to leave that elephant in the room out of the equation. I'm not. If you claim you are aware of a god, I have to ask the logical question, tell me how. That how is a testable claim.


Again, awareness of something by an observer isn't a prerequisite to the thing's existence. (There are plenty of people who have no awareness of me, but I exist!) I agree though that it is wholly unreasonable to believe in something when you have no evidence (no reason to believe) the thing exists. It's only illogical to believe the existence of a thing if the thing's existence presents a logical contradiction (like 4 sided triangles or a god that is omnipotent, omniscient and all-compassionate given the existence of pain and suffering in the world).But the people who are not aware of you are not claiming they are aware of you.



...But JREF isn't about making logical arguments, but rather actual controlled tests/demonstrations of claims. That's a position that is consistent (JREF has never been interested in the theory behind a claim). So if you accept that some claims aren't testable, it's not especially relevant that there is what Randi calls "philosophical proof" or disproof of these untestable claims.Well I address this problem another way. The scientific process requires we follow the evidence, not fit the evidence to the conclusion.

The evidence is overwhelming that gods are mythical beings. I don't need to go anywhere else but where the evidence leads.

I just don't see a double standard. I'm still willing to take your word that Phil Plaitt is pro-NOMA, but I'm becoming less certain since you seem to think anyone who accepts that there are untestable claims is pro NOMA.When I went looking for examples of Phil's position, I got the impression he has shifted some from the old days. I don't want to speak for him if he has.

When I first came upon the skeptical community it was via Phil in his old BA forum days. He was very big then on NOMa, at least in principle. I think over the years he may be reassessing that position. I'd love to know but he doesn't often join in forum discussions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This makes sense to me now SG.

But how does one test what is in ones heart?
my emphasisAre you a Christian? If so, I will answer that. If you are of another religion, we'll see.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with you that there is absolutely no reason to believe these things. I agree that they're silly and unreasonable things to believe.

However, they are answers to questions. Some of the answers are testable (and we know them to be wrong). Some answers are untestable, though susceptible to disproof by logic (what Randi calls "philosophical proof"). I think JREF is only interested in testable claims and not in disproof by logic.

At any rate, the distinction between testable and untestable claims does not line up with non-religious vs. religious claims. Many untestable claims are religious, but not all.The problem here is using the "untestable claims" argument as evidence for god woo being different than non-god woo.

[A.A. Alfie]

Are you a Christian? If so, I will answer that. If you are of another religion, we'll see.

I honestly don't see how that is relevant. My faith or lack thereof has no bearing on the question at all.
Can you test my love for another?

I ask again
How does one test what's in ones heart?

[lightfire22000]

Please tell me the skeptical argument in favor of god beliefs?

Let me start, you cannot disprove gods exist.
God beliefs can coexist with science, if we put them in a separate box.

I've already pointed out why these two avenues are faulty.

Got any other arguments?

As far as science is concerned, God is an operational definition. God is the ultimate cause and source for everything in the universe.

[The Atheist]

I honestly don't see how that is relevant. My faith or lack thereof has no bearing on the question at all.
Can you test my love for another?

As long as you specify what "love" actually is, no problemo.

If you want to test for some esoteric cultural construct, it might be difficult, but have a go so we know what we're looking for.

I ask again
How does one test what's in ones heart?

X-ray, ultrasound, MRI, catheter scan....

What does your heart have to do with it?

[A.A. Alfie]

As long as you specify what "love" actually is, no problemo.



I love you TA,;)
how can we measure/test that?

But seriously, I think you know where I'm coming from.
If "it should be measurable" as SG said. Just how?

[KoihimeNakamura]

I have only one thought that I'm seeing not at all applied ITT:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Thank you.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The problem here is using the "untestable claims" argument as evidence for god woo being different than non-god woo.

I don't think it is. God claims that are untestable are necessarily not based on evidence.

I think the only categories of relevance to Randi and JREF are testable vs. untestable. I don't think there is evidence of a double standard for religious vs. non-religious claims.

I've presented evidence for my case.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Once you tell me how god communicates with you, we can test that. If you are making no testable claim, how do you know anything about god?
You do realize I'm an atheist, don't you?

At any rate, I think people who make untestable god claims don't actually know anything. But they can make untestable god claims. Those claims are obviously not based on evidence.

For example, Christians claim god speaks to them through the Bible. But you can easily show the Bible is of human origin. There is no special knowledge, it fits only the culture that wrote it, there are equivalent texts for other religions in other regions of the world, the Bible stories resemble oral mythology out of Africa and so on.

Name me another way god communicates.
Look, some god claims are testable and some are not. I've given you several examples now of untestable claims. Now you want examples of untestable claims on the narrow topic of communication from god. Why? I've already given you untestable claims. Your idea that any claim necessarily makes a claim about communication is false.

Again, the claim that when a priest consecrates a wafer, God changes that wafer to the body of Christ but the wafer retains all the accidents of a wafer is an untestable claim.



The evidence is overwhelming that gods are mythical beings. I don't need to go anywhere else but where the evidence leads.
I agree wholeheartedly, and I've said as much many many times. However, no need to go anywhere else is not the same as saying that some other conclusion is necessarily illogical. (For it to be illogical there has to be a logical contradiction.) Though I agree it's utterly silly and unreasonable to accept a proposition for which there is no evidence.

[JoeTheJuggler]

As far as science is concerned, God is an operational definition. God is the ultimate cause and source for everything in the universe.

That's no where close to what an operational definition is.

It's also a wholly disingenuous definition of god except for the deist notion.

And I believe that the deist god was strictly invented as a way to avoid running into logical contradictions. As such, it's sort of a non-definition. It's like saying, "Whatever idea of god you can disprove, the deist god is something else."

The ultimate god of the gaps.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I honestly don't see how that is relevant. My faith or lack thereof has no bearing on the question at all.
Can you test my love for another?

I ask again
How does one test what's in ones heart?Yep, love can indeed be tested, and described scientifically. There is lust, pair bonding, parent-infant bonding, family bonding (or not) and so on. There is a physiological as well as a psychological component to the various kinds of love that exists between humans.


The reason why it matters which religion you are to show you it lacks any underlying magical source of knowledge is we need to look at your specific magical underlying source. The Bible as a magical source of knowledge is easily debunked, for example.

[Skeptic Ginger]

As far as science is concerned, God is an operational definition. God is the ultimate cause and source for everything in the universe.According the the scientific definition of God????????

Wow, that question has been posed a zillion times with a zillion answers. How did you figure out the real definition?

[Earthborn]

I see no reason to split the Universe into real and some nebulous anything goes as long as you don't make a testable claim side of the Universe.The way I understand NOMA is that it doesn't assume that the universe is split, but that ways of thinking about the universe are. I think this is obviously true, but I also think those ways of thinking may overlap in some areas.

Hope that some quackery will affect a terminal cancer serves an emotional need as well.If that quackery does not interfere with effective treatment, and makes no empirical claims that it works in any other way than serving an emotional need, there wouldn't be a problem.

I'm only arguing to drop the double standard.NOMA argues that more than one standard is necessary, because the standards of science are not the same as the standards for morality, the arts, politics or religion.

Why didn't you include the benefit of other placebos and emotional comforts in that statement?I didn't exclude them either. I just wasn't talking about medical problems specifically.

I don't buy it however, that people who are agnostic about gods are truly equally agnostic about invisible pink unicorns.People tend to have their own preferences about the things they consider possible, even if they don't specifically believe in them. Vague notions such as "God" tend to be more popular than more specific beings such as invisible pink unicorns, even if there is no reason to assume God couldn't be an invisible pink unicorn.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have only one thought that I'm seeing not at all applied ITT:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Thank you.I address this all the time. It's one of the concepts that is treated as the elephant in the room when it comes to many god discussions.

THERE IS EVIDENCE. And if you follow it, the conclusion the evidence overwhelmingly supports is the conclusion gods are mythical beings people invented. How many mythical being conclusions does it take to recognize a pattern?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think it is. God claims that are untestable are necessarily not based on evidence.Except for the claim gods exist or might exist. Note the post I answered above. Do we have an absence of evidence that gods are mythical beings?

[Skeptic Ginger]

You do realize I'm an atheist, don't you?Yes. That makes the 'you' in my sentence refer to anyone making the claim a god exists which doesn't interact with the Universe.

At any rate, I think people who make untestable god claims don't actually know anything. But they can make untestable god claims. Those claims are obviously not based on evidence. If it really was just a semantic argument, it would go away on its own accord: I make no testable claims about my invisible pink unicorn. You cannot prove my invisible pink unicorn does not exist.

But with god beliefs, that is not what the argument is about most of the time. The argument is the implied claim that since you cannot prove someone's god does not exist, that somehow gives weight to the belief. Yet it gives no such weight whatsoever. And it ignores all the evidence gods are mythical.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The way I understand NOMA is that it doesn't assume that the universe is split, but that ways of thinking about the universe are. I think this is obviously true, but I also think those ways of thinking may overlap in some areas.

If that quackery does not interfere with effective treatment, and makes no empirical claims that it works in any other way than serving an emotional need, there wouldn't be a problem.

NOMA argues that more than one standard is necessary, because the standards of science are not the same as the standards for morality, the arts, politics or religion.

I didn't exclude them either. I just wasn't talking about medical problems specifically.

People tend to have their own preferences about the things they consider possible, even if they don't specifically believe in them. Vague notions such as "God" tend to be more popular than more specific beings such as invisible pink unicorns, even if there is no reason to assume God couldn't be an invisible pink unicorn.

I don't have an issue with wasting time on woo that isn't hurting anyone. My issue here is about treating god woo differently than other woo. And while lip service is often paid to that effect, in reality, there are examples which demonstrate otherwise.

My example above is the most blatant, why is the skeptic discussion more often about not being able to prove gods don't exist rather than a discussion of the evidence gods are mythical? And second most obvious, how many other superstitions have their own word equivalent to agnostic? Are you agnostic, really/truly/honestly, about invisible pink unicorns?

[Earthborn]

My answers were just as general as your questions.Indeed, which once again shows nicely how some questions are not scientific. Science tends to require very specific questions instead of general or vague ones.

we can calculate that!If you assume morality is mere calculus, which isn't an assumption many will share with you.

But, the more science understands the situation, the more specific its answers will become, over time.It is rather unlikely however that it will find some definitive moral answer.

The answers are also more accurate when they are more informed.If the questions are accurate enough, which they aren't.

If you are going to argue that they should not be scientific questions, you have to address why science can reliably answer them, even if it takes a lot more effort.I have no opinion on whether they should not be scientific questions, I think they could not. I have no reason to believe science can reliably answer them, or even that it is worth trying.

Every question that is now scientific was once considered religious. Every one of them!You could indeed argue that science and religion share a common ancestor. In the Middle Ages knowledge we would now call "scientific" was most often held, discovered and spread by religious authorities. Perhaps this is why the magisteria of religion and science step on each other's toes every now and then, instead of being completely non-overlapping. It does not mean however that all religious matters will one day become scientific matters, and scientific thinking will become the only thinking there is.

I see no reason why we could not have good, solid empirical answers for moral questions, one day.I can think of a very good reason: morality isn't empirical.

Or whatever the non-science magisterium is called.There is no reason to assume there can only be two magisteria, a science and a non-science one. There maybe many non-science magisteria, among them the arts, politics, morality and religion.

Pseudo-scientific woo often makes testable claims. They usually fail those tests, and quite miserably so. But, the claims can still, often, be tackled by science, none-the-less.That's because they don't limit themselves to matters outside of the magisterium of science. In fact by pretending to be scientific they tread through the proper domain of science.

[Earthborn]

I don't have an issue with wasting time on woo that isn't hurting anyone. My issue here is about treating god woo differently than other woo."God woo" is not necessarily "empirical woo", and more often then not isn't hurting anyone. Seems to me a pretty good reason to treat it differently.

... why is the skeptic discussion more often about not being able to prove gods don't exist rather than a discussion of the evidence gods are mythical?My guess is that often the evidence that gods are mythical is off-topic, especially in threads about whether JREF needs to be an atheist organisation or not. A mythical beast might still exist.

Are you agnostic, really/truly/honestly, about invisible pink unicorns?Yes, of course I am.

[Skeptic Ginger]

"God woo" is not necessarily "empirical woo", and more often then not isn't hurting anyone. Seems to me a pretty good reason to treat it differently.Yes, god woo is the same as any woo. Goodness, I'm griping about the double standard and you claim there is no double standard in the same breath you say there is.

My guess is that often the evidence that gods are mythical is off-topic, especially in threads about whether JREF needs to be an atheist organisation or not. A mythical beast might still exist.

Yes, of course I am.
Off topic? :boggled:

A real beast might be the source of a mythical beast. The beast would be Earthly, and not have any mythical magical powers attributed to the beast in the myth.

Real people/things are of course on occasion going to the the source of god myths. That doesn't provide evidence or an argument for any supernatural beings.

[A.A. Alfie]

Yep, love can indeed be tested, and described scientifically. There is lust, pair bonding, parent-infant bonding, family bonding (or not) and so on. There is a physiological as well as a psychological component to the various kinds of love that exists between humans.


The reason why it matters which religion you are to show you it lacks any underlying magical source of knowledge is we need to look at your specific magical underlying source. The Bible as a magical source of knowledge is easily debunked, for example.

So you are saying "bonding" is love?
Describing psychological theory is not testing love.

Please show me how to test and measure love.

btw, my 'religion' (if anything) is probably best described as agnostic.
And it is still irrelevant to the question.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you are saying "bonding" is love?
Describing psychological theory is not testing love.

Please show me how to test and measure love.

btw, my 'religion' (if anything) is probably best described as agnostic.
And it is still irrelevant to the question.I find it really hard to believe you are agnostic and not a Christian. Are you sure you are not just lying for Jesus?

I've described an hypothesis for what love is. You've challenged me to measure a single expression or type of love. Both bonding and lust are labeled as love in human definitions of love.

You define it and I'll describe a test for it. So before I bother, I need you to confirm you want tests for bonding of any kind between humans. Is that correct?

[Prometheus]

....It is rather unlikely however that it will find some definitive moral answer....

No more unlikely than the possibility that religion will ever find some definitive moral (or any other) answer.


If the questions are accurate enough, which they aren't.

If a question is ambiguous, then it cannot be answered definitively by any means.


I have no opinion on whether they should not be scientific questions, I think they could not. I have no reason to believe science can reliably answer them, or even that it is worth trying.

Then these are questions that are not worth asking.


You could indeed argue that science and religion share a common ancestor. In the Middle Ages knowledge we would now call "scientific" was most often held, discovered and spread by religious authorities. Perhaps this is why the magisteria of religion and science step on each other's toes every now and then, instead of being completely non-overlapping. It does not mean however that all religious matters will one day become scientific matters, and scientific thinking will become the only thinking there is.

Without a doubt, science and religion do share a common ancestor. Both modes of thought evolved because at some point in evolutionary history, both had survival value. But only science holds out any hope of ever explaining just how that happened.


I can think of a very good reason: morality isn't empirical.

Morality is an artifact of mind, which in turn is a characteristic of a physical brain. It only seems not to be empirical because the language traditionally used to describe it assumes that it is not.


There is no reason to assume there can only be two magisteria, a science and a non-science one. There maybe many non-science magisteria, among them the arts, politics, morality and religion.

There's no reason to assume there must be more than one magisterium, either.


That's because they don't limit themselves to matters outside of the magisterium of science. In fact by pretending to be scientific they tread through the proper domain of science.

Everything that has any observable effect within the natural world is the proper domain of science. It's kind of hard not to tread on that.

[Earthborn]

No more unlikely than the possibility that religion will ever find some definitive moral (or any other) answer.That's okay because not all magisteria deal with definitive answers.

Then these are questions that are not worth asking.The fact that people enjoying and creating art, there is a justice system, political system and there is religion suggest that there are many people who do think such questions are worth asking, even trying to answer.

Morality is an artifact of mind, which in turn is a characteristic of a physical brain. It only seems not to be empirical because the language traditionally used to describe it assumes that it is not.No, it is not empirical because it is an artifact of the mind. Empirically it is just a whole bunch of stuff we made up.

There's no reason to assume there must be more than one magisterium, either.Seems rather tricky to get rid of all the other modes of thinking. That to me seems a reason to assume we will forever be stuck with more than one.

Everything that has any observable effect within the natural world is the proper domain of science. It's kind of hard not to tread on that.True, which is why I think a more appropriate term would be SOMA (Slightly overlapping magisteria). Still the scientific way if looking at things is by necessity rather limited; you can study a work of art purely by its objectively measurable characteristics and entirely miss its point.

[A.A. Alfie]

I find it really hard to believe you are agnostic and not a Christian. Are you sure you are not just lying for Jesus?

I've described an hypothesis for what love is. You've challenged me to measure a single expression or type of love. Both bonding and lust are labeled as love in human definitions of love.

You define it and I'll describe a test for it. So before I bother, I need you to confirm you want tests for bonding of any kind between humans. Is that correct?

Sorry SG
You made the statement that love could be tested. So far nothing but bonding theory.
Tell you what, you pick one example of love - I really don't mind which.
I am genuinely interested.
The only love tester I have ever seen have been been located in cheap dives or on a teenagers phone as inward texts.:)

As for finding difficulty believing what my 'religion' is: Meh, I care not. :p
It's irrelevant

[KoihimeNakamura]

Note: the sphere that religion covers is also philosophy, I tend to think of it as a belief system sphere. (which, hilarious, atheism is by definition - a set of beliefs.)

Anyway: Skeptigirl: I was not referring to the Christian god. For example, I doubt you can prove to me either way about the kami of Shintoism.

[Earthborn]

So you are saying "bonding" is love?It is probably just as good a term as any other.

Please show me how to test and measure love.Science can easily test and measure the empirically observable behaviours that are associated with "love". That does not of course change the fact that it can't address the subjective feelings of love... that is to say the stuff that people tend to think is the most important.

[Prometheus]

That's okay because not all magisteria deal with definitive answers.

The fact that people enjoying and creating art, there is a justice system, political system and there is religion suggest that there are many people who do think such questions are worth asking, even trying to answer.

No, it is not empirical because it is an artifact of the mind. Empirically it is just a whole bunch of stuff we made up.

Seems rather tricky to get rid of all the other modes of thinking. That to me seems a reason to assume we will forever be stuck with more than one.

True, which is why I think a more appropriate term would be SOMA (Slightly overlapping magisteria). Still the scientific way if looking at things is by necessity rather limited; you can study a work of art purely by its objectively measurable characteristics and entirely miss its point.

It seems you are confusing the terms "magisteria" and "modes of thinking". They're not the same thing. All of the things you mention are empirical. We just talk about them as if they're not, and have not gotten very detailed in our empirical study of them yet. And by assuming that they're not empirical just because we talk about them that way, all you're really doing is begging the question.

[Prometheus]

Note: the sphere that religion covers is also philosophy, I tend to think of it as a belief system sphere. (which, hilarious, atheism is by definition - a set of beliefs.)

Anyway: Skeptigirl: I was not referring to the Christian god. For example, I doubt you can prove to me either way about the kami of Shintoism.

Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It's a lack of certain unsupportable beliefs.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It's a lack of certain unsupportable beliefs.

I would like to know how you know there is no god of any kind or type. (Hint: The conclusion is the belief itself. But then again, believing in justice as supreme is a belief, so I use it in the sense of dedication to an abstract idea.)

[Egg]

You have to understand here that I have a particular point of view that I recognize not everyone holds, but at the same time, I am confident my view is supportable. That view is what I posted: "Either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical."

Once a person says a god exists, if you don't inquire further, you can say that declaration makes no testable claim.

So, how does one test your claim that "either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical"?

If science can't be used to test claims that we should only accept claims testable by science, does science vanish in a puff of logic?:eggwacko:

[A.A. Alfie]

http://www.lovecalculator.com/

This might help

Thanks to DG
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=161381

[popscythe]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Here, let me help you out with a popscythe original. Feel free to quote me whenever you'd like.

"Conception of ******** is not Evidence of Anything."

Just because you can think of an idea doesn't mean that the idea is possibly true. You came up with the idea, which makes it inherently LESS likely to be true. I mean, you just made the idea up with an "ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE", correct?

Now lets apply that to the people who wrote the fictional work called "the new testament" a couple hundred years after the subjects in the novel supposedly died in an attempt to shake things up in Rome (you didn't think the blair witch project and paranormal activity were real too, did you?) and you've got yourself a realistic situation. To even apply the whole "absence of evidence" card to that situation you must assume that the writers of this novel actually believed what they were saying, which is clearly not the truth, as the story was clearly made up of using scraps of everyone else's dogma. You don't think Joseph Smith was telling the truth do you? Well your mysterious authors were the Joseph Smith's of Rome. Their guy, Jesus, is a turncoat against his own faith in the novel as a recruitment technique. "See, the KING of the Jews even said the religion he was raised in was old fashioned. That means that it's okay for any Rabbi to come across the fence!"

If someone tried to pull this on you right now and convince you that the messiah was born a Christian and then created a new faith that was reasonably different and expected you to follow it, you'd be angry! But because that exact same scam went off fifteen hundred years ago or so (eventually resulting in the destruction of classical society of course) you buy it like it was on sale. People were a lot less informed (easier to scam) back then, and because someone told you that "they believed it" you believe it too? Everything else they believed was wrong, friend. The idea that invisible creatures in the sky or on a high mountain or something created/control us has been disputed the entire time and blatant scam artists have been trying to dupe the wishful thinkers for an equal amount of time.

Couple the technical discussion of how the trick was pulled off at the time with the modern complete lack of evidence whatsoever regarding the J man's existence and I don't believe it's possible to maintain belief in any mythology from that era if you just think about it for a little while. The problem is that most people play word games when questioned instead of thinking.

[Prometheus]

I would like to know how you know there is no god of any kind or type. (Hint: The conclusion is the belief itself. But then again, believing in justice as supreme is a belief, so I use it in the sense of dedication to an abstract idea.)

Hint: I don't know there is no god of any kind or type. I assume that there is no such being unless and until one makes itself known. Atheism is the lack of any positive belief that there is a god. If any evidence ever turns up in support of a claim that a god of any kind or type exists, then I will cease to be an atheist. The only relevant belief which I hold to is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry SG
You made the statement that love could be tested. So far nothing but bonding theory.
Tell you what, you pick one example of love - I really don't mind which.
I am genuinely interested.
The only love tester I have ever seen have been been located in cheap dives or on a teenagers phone as inward texts.:)

As for finding difficulty believing what my 'religion' is: Meh, I care not. :p
It's irrelevantIt would seem that you are defining love purposefully to be outside the realm of science. Perhaps you'd like to start with a definition.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Note: the sphere that religion covers is also philosophy, I tend to think of it as a belief system sphere. (which, hilarious, atheism is by definition - a set of beliefs.)

Anyway: Skeptigirl: I was not referring to the Christian god. For example, I doubt you can prove to me either way about the kami of Shintoism.Not my field of expertise so it will take a bit of review on my part.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is probably just as good a term as any other.

Science can easily test and measure the empirically observable behaviours that are associated with "love". That does not of course change the fact that it can't address the subjective feelings of love... that is to say the stuff that people tend to think is the most important.
In my rational world there are no magical 'feelings'. Emotions, including that identified as "love" are the result of neurotransmitters and brain structure. That people believe there is some other magical thing out there beyond the neurological processes in one's brain is pure fantasy.

Math is a concept. Love is a biological process. It's a wonderful process, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it is not a biological process.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It's a lack of certain unsupportable beliefs.
In my case I also consider atheism to be a supportable belief in that the evidence supports the conclusion gods are not real beings.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, how does one test your claim that "either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical"?

If science can't be used to test claims that we should only accept claims testable by science, does science vanish in a puff of logic?:eggwacko:In my rational world view, there is no separate universe. It's like saying you cannot test anything that happens in the world of Harry Potter. But you know that the world of Harry Potter is a fictional world.

Just because you can make up a Harry Potter world and claim it is untestable does not make that world exist. Just because someone made up a world with a god in it and now that person claims I cannot challenge that fantasy, does not make the fantasy real.

So science does not test fantasies? What does that even mean in terms of the real Universe? Can you give me any reason whatsoever that rationalizes why I should care that science does not test fantasies? Can you suggest any reason I should consider claims a god exists any differently than claims Harry Potter's world exists?

[A.A. Alfie]

It would seem that you are defining love purposefully to be outside the realm of science. Perhaps you'd like to start with a definition.

I've left any example open to you. Pick one, test it and measure it, please.
It's just that bonding isn't love imho.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
It's just that bonding isn't love imho.I take it you have no children?

[A.A. Alfie]

I take it you have no children?

Four

Now, how about measuring and testing love.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you have 4 kids and you don't consider love to include bonding with those kids? You think it is something separate?

[A.A. Alfie]

So you have 4 kids and you don't consider love to include bonding with those kids? You think it is something separate?

Yep, four of them.
Glue bonds; I love my kids

Now how about measuring and testing it (or any other type of love).

It's your claim, not mine.
Can you back it up or not?

[Egg]

So, how does one test your claim that "either there is a testable claim or the god belief is illogical"?

If science can't be used to test claims that we should only accept claims testable by science, does science vanish in a puff of logic?:eggwacko:

In my rational world view, there is no separate universe. It's like saying you cannot test anything that happens in the world of Harry Potter. But you know that the world of Harry Potter is a fictional world.

Just because you can make up a Harry Potter world and claim it is untestable does not make that world exist. Just because someone made up a world with a god in it and now that person claims I cannot challenge that fantasy, does not make the fantasy real.

So science does not test fantasies? What does that even mean in terms of the real Universe? Can you give me any reason whatsoever that rationalizes why I should care that science does not test fantasies? Can you suggest any reason I should consider claims a god exists any differently than claims Harry Potter's world exists?
With respect, Skeptigirl, you're avoiding the question. Are you or are you not saying that a belief in something not testable is an illogical belief?

You said you were confident you could defend that view. If this claim cannot be tested then surely it is self defeating? Can you suggest a scientific test?

[Prometheus]

In my case I also consider atheism to be a supportable belief in that the evidence supports the conclusion gods are not real beings.

I think the evidence supports the conclusion that most (if not all) observed human god beliefs do not refer to actual beings. Your argument is valid, but it relies on a hidden premise (That if there's really a god or gods, it/they want to be known). An omnipotent being that wants us to think there are no gods would certainly be capable of sweeping up any evidence to the contrary. I realize this is splitting metaphysical hairs, but I'm a recovering Philosophy Major, and sometimes I just can't help myself. :)

[zooterkin]

I would like to know how you know there is no god of any kind or type. (Hint: The conclusion is the belief itself. But then again, believing in justice as supreme is a belief, so I use it in the sense of dedication to an abstract idea.)

Define 'god', then explain what is special about gods that not believing in them is qualitatively different from not believing in the FSM, IPU, celestial teapot or Father Christmas.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Define 'god', then explain what is special about gods that not believing in them is qualitatively different from not believing in the FSM, IPU, celestial teapot or Father Christmas.

'god' a supernatural deity or being. (i.e divinity)

I dunno. I'd lump a lot of them into the same category. But again, I'd also argue that a focus/source of beliefs/ethics and behaviorial patterns is by default different from a source that does not.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Hint: I don't know there is no god of any kind or type. I assume that there is no such being unless and until one makes itself known. Atheism is the lack of any positive belief that there is a god. If any evidence ever turns up in support of a claim that a god of any kind or type exists, then I will cease to be an atheist. The only relevant belief which I hold to is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I.. isn't that agnosticism?


Here, let me help you out with a popscythe original. Feel free to quote me whenever you'd like.

"Conception of Bull@#$% is not Evidence of Anything."

Just because you can think of an idea doesn't mean that the idea is possibly true. You came up with the idea, which makes it inherently LESS likely to be true. I mean, you just made the idea up with an "ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE", correct?

No. It's a well known quote. It's a restatment of the fallacy argument to ignorance:


. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.



Now lets apply that to the people who wrote the fictional work called "the new testament" a couple hundred years after the subjects in the novel supposedly died in an attempt to shake things up in Rome (you didn't think the blair witch project and paranormal activity were real too, did you?)
No. Please stop assuming I'm dumb. (Although I heard Paranormal activity is a fun movie, but not even the director pretends it's real.)


and you've got yourself a realistic situation. To even apply the whole "absence of evidence" card to that situation you must assume that the writers of this novel actually believed what they were saying, which is clearly not the truth, as the story was clearly made up of using scraps of everyone else's dogma. You don't think Joseph Smith was telling the truth do you?
No. Also, there's no need to get insulting...


Well your mysterious authors were the Joseph Smith's of Rome. Their guy, Jesus, is a turncoat against his own faith in the novel as a recruitment technique. "See, the KING of the Jews even said the religion he was raised in was old fashioned. That means that it's okay for any Rabbi to come across the fence!"

If someone tried to pull this on you right now and convince you that the messiah was born a Christian and then created a new faith that was reasonably different and expected you to follow it, you'd be angry! But because that exact same scam went off fifteen hundred years ago or so (eventually resulting in the destruction of classical society of course) you buy it like it was on sale.
I'm an agnostic. Fail.

[Darat]

I.. isn't that agnosticism?

...snip...


I'm an agnostic. Fail.

Rika - which god do you believe in?

[KoihimeNakamura]

None. There is insufficient evidence for me to conclude either way

[Darat]

None. There is insufficient evidence for me to conclude either way

Since you have no belief in a god you are an atheist!

[KoihimeNakamura]

I.. 'm still sure that's agnosticism.

[A.A. Alfie]

I may be wrong and and happy to be corrected.
I thought an atheist was certain there is no god
An agositic thinks it may be possible but in the absence of evidence... well it's unknowable.

[Darat]

I.. 'm still sure that's agnosticism.

There is no reason that you can't be an atheist and be agnostic about the possibility of a god or gods existing. But if you do not believe in a god (of any sort) then you are "without a belief in a god(s)" so are an atheist.

I'm really hoping more and more people will adopt my use of "atheist" since as I'll have mentioned elsewhere it leaves the "belief" element where it belongs i.e. with those that are making a claim.

[KoihimeNakamura]

There is no reason that you can't be an atheist and be agnostic about the possibility of a god or gods existing. But if you do not believe in a god (of any sort) then you are "without a belief in a god(s)" so are an atheist.

I'm really hoping more and more people will adopt my use of "atheist" since as I'll have mentioned elsewhere it leaves the "belief" element where it belongs i.e. with those that are making a claim.

Oh. Okay, that makes sense.

[dglas]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay orgnaization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.

[quixotecoyote]

So, with D.J. Grothe becoming the next president of the JREF, is the JREF a gay orgnaization? Seems to me we need a policy statement from the JREF publicly confirming or refuting that.

Then we can get posts from the people in here who claim that they aren't gay, they just like to have sexual intercourse with same-sex partners. And the circle will truly be complete.

[Prometheus]

I.. isn't that agnosticism?
<snip>

The term is popularly misused that way. Agnosticism actually means "without knowing" and is correctly interpreted as the assertion that it is not possible to know the truth about a given topic, such as the existence or non-existence of a god. It is possible to be agnostic about god(s) and either theist or atheist, simultaneously.

[popscythe]

No.

I love how so many people on this forum use the multi-quote enfilade to refute one point in several sentences and leave the other sentences quoted. Why go to all the trouble, and not edit what you're quoting down to what you're responding to?

As an actual reply to what you said...

No. The absence of quality refutation is not the evidence of a quality post.

[Earthborn]

In my rational world there are no magical 'feelings'. Emotions, including that identified as "love" are the result of neurotransmitters and brain structure. That people believe there is some other magical thing out there beyond the neurological processes in one's brain is pure fantasy.You aren't addressing the point and throw in irrelevancies. I didn't say anything about there being some magical thing. In my world view there aren't any magical feelings either, and I fully accept that human emotions are entirely the result of underlying neurology and biochemistry. But I do not think that the only valid way to look at love is measuring and describing its objective characteristics. There is also subjective experience.

It's a wonderful process, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it is not a biological process.I fully agree that it is a biological process, but I don't think you can provide any scientific evidence that it is "wonderful process"; that's a subjective value judgement that falls outside the magisterium of science.

[Earthborn]

It seems you are confusing the terms "magisteria" and "modes of thinking". They're not the same thing.Explain the difference then.

All of the things you mention are empirical.The perceived beauty of an art work isn't empirical, the perceived justice of a court case or a law isn't either.

We just talk about them as if they're not, and have not gotten very detailed in our empirical study of them yet.Things aren't empirical if they haven't been studied yet and therefore have not been experienced by anyone through their senses. "Empirical" is not a synonym of "objective". An "objective truth" only becomes empirical once it is observed.

[Prometheus]

Explain the difference then.

"Modes of thinking" refers to different cognitive approaches to a given problem. One classic example is the reductionist mode vs. the holistic mode. Either can be used to approach a similar problem. "Magisterium" as Gould uses it, refers to a type of problem rather than an approach to solving it. NOMA posits that the science and religion deal with different sorts of problems altogether.


The perceived beauty of an art work isn't empirical, the perceived justice of a court case or a law isn't either.

Perception is an experience, so these things are empirical.


Things aren't empirical if they haven't been studied yet and therefore have not been experienced by anyone through their senses. "Empirical" is not a synonym of "objective". An "objective truth" only becomes empirical once it is observed.

I didn't say they haven't been studied yet. I said we haven't gotten very far in studying them yet, and I never tried to equate 'empirical' with 'objective'.

[Prometheus]

...But I do not think that the only valid way to look at love is measuring and describing its objective characteristics. There is also subjective experience.

Of course. But subjective experience is within the purview of empirical study. "Empirical" does not equal "objective," as you point out yourself.


I fully agree that it is a biological process, but I don't think you can provide any scientific evidence that it is "wonderful process"; that's a subjective value judgement that falls outside the magisterium of science.

Perhaps not yet. However, neurologists can already use a brain scan to determine whether a given image is familiar to you or not. It's only a matter of time before they can pinpoint the reactions that occur within the brain whenever you experience a sense of wonder.

[Egg]

I'm really hoping more and more people will adopt my use of "atheist" since as I'll have mentioned elsewhere it leaves the "belief" element where it belongs i.e. with those that are making a claim.
Might it not make more sense to encourage people to say "I'm not a theist" rather than insist on using the "not theist" definition of "atheist" when the word is commonly understood to mean "a belief in no gods"?

This, I believe, covers the concept you're trying to express, with less danger of someone misunderstanding your position or suggesting that you are making any kind of claim or stating a belief.

It also avoids the equivocation of the two meanings of "atheist" that some people do when their actual position is that they do believe no gods exist and both definitions apply to them, but they use the "not theist" definition to avoid defending that position in an argument.

[Prometheus]

Might it not make more sense to encourage people to say "I'm not a theist" rather than insist on using the "not theist" definition of "atheist" when the word is commonly understood to mean "a belief in no gods"?

This, I believe, covers the concept you're trying to express, with less danger of someone misunderstanding your position or suggesting that you are making any kind of claim or stating a belief.

It also avoids the equivocation of the two meanings of "atheist" that some people do when their actual position is that they do believe no gods exist and both definitions apply to them, but they use the "not theist" definition to avoid defending that position in an argument.

I used to agree with this argument, but I've changed my mind recently. Now I think it makes more sense to go the other way for exactly the reason that Darat identifies--placing the 'belief' element with those actually making a claim (particularly one that is not supported by evidence).

Also, to some degree I think the potential for equivocation, while annoying, is somewhat useful in cultivating critical thinking, and pointing out that there are different sorts of atheism may also help to break the tendency to stereotype all atheists.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I love how so many people on this forum use the multi-quote enfilade to refute one point in several sentences and leave the other sentences quoted. Why go to all the trouble, and not edit what you're quoting down to what you're responding to?

As an actual reply to what you said...

No. The absence of quality refutation is not the evidence of a quality post.

Because I was refuting generally what seemed to be a coherent thought.

Also, way to personalize the argument. Seriously.

But hey, if you want a torrent of links:

* http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden
* http://skeptoid.com/episode.php?id=4073&comments=all

And from Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit:
* http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

[athon]

Yep, four of them.
Glue bonds; I love my kids

Now how about measuring and testing it (or any other type of love).

For giggles, I thought I'd weigh into the discussion on this point. Hope I'm not treading on toes. :)

For my money, this is a definition problem. 'Love', itself, is a quality which varies within the context the term is used. i.e., you can feel love, love ice cream, love your wife, be in love etc.

Measuring it is like measuring any other quality - it demands parameters to be set so people know precisely what it is you're counting, and relating to the quality. So, like any quality, you'd need to find something to observe, state that as the nature of the observation varies, so does the nature of the quality. The argument is then a matter of correlating the observation (and its variation) with the quality itself.

You can't measure love any more than you can measure redness. But you can measure the intensity of light between two wavelengths, and then argue this observation correlates with what you understand the term 'redness' to mean. Another person might disagree and say that redness means how close that wavelength is to an optimum 'red', and isn't its intensity.

The problem of language is a constant one in science. It's always hard to agree on meaning, simply because of differences in background and experience. Hence strict definitions like this are always important.

Athon

[popscythe]

links

Interesting links, thank you.

[The Atheist]

I love you TA,;)
how can we measure/test that?

Mate, I love you like a brother.

I can test for it.

But seriously, I think you know where I'm coming from.
If "it should be measurable" as SG said. Just how?

No, no, no.

That's why I said and will repeat:

First off, we must decide on exactly what "love" is.

Now, I can't imagine our mutual Platonic love for each other is the same beast as the love I share with Mrs Atheist. I can explain both in quite simple terms, but they are totally different things, so we really need to step back to my initial point.

Also, since it's completely, off topic, no doubt one of our esteemed moderators will shift it all off to a new thread where we can look at your wuestion in depth.

If you start a thread along the lines of: "Does love exist?" let me know.

I've left any example open to you. Pick one, test it and measure it, please.
It's just that bonding isn't love imho.

Ping!

Define the term.

I don't go in for this pansy "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mumbo-jumbo. JUst define the term first. Not for discussion here, but what is bonding if it isn't love? You could the thread off with that as an example.

:bgrin:

I may be wrong and and happy to be corrected.
I thought an atheist was certain there is no god

That's good news, because you're about to be corrected and I'm a lot more delighted by your willingness to change your mind than I was by the Windies missing a nice win!

Atheist: does not believe in god.

Atheists who insist there is no god form a part of those atheists, just as agnostics do, as one of the admins is pointing out to someone in this very thread.

Even though someone might be hiding behind the "we don't know" banner, if they do not actively believe in at least one god, then they're also atheists.

Harsh, but true.

An agositic thinks it may be possible but in the absence of evidence... well it's unknowable.

Unknowable is always such an un-agnostic word, I feel. Douglas Adams did agnosticism and knowing rather well.

We cannot know!

If you know that you can not know - i.e. something is unknowable, then you suddenly don't look too much like an agnostic any more.

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Modes of thinking" refers to different cognitive approaches to a given problem. One classic example is the reductionist mode vs. the holistic mode. Either can be used to approach a similar problem. "Magisterium" as Gould uses it, refers to a type of problem rather than an approach to solving it.
While your definition is closer than "modes of thinking", the term magisterium is from the Latin word for "teacher" and it refers to an area of teaching--or rather the teaching authority.

According to Gould, religion's teaching-realm is ethics & morality and the like, while science's is the natural world. (That is, religion has the authority to answer values type of questions, while science answer questions about how things work.) However, the problem is that no religion limits itself to that realm AND the realm of ethics and morality and values is part of the natural world anyway.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Skeptigirl, do you see that your complaining about Plaitt's position on NOMA got him fired?
;)

[Prometheus]

While your definition is closer than "modes of thinking", the term magisterium is from the Latin word for "teacher" and it refers to an area of teaching--or rather the teaching authority.

According to Gould, religion's teaching-realm is ethics & morality and the like, while science's is the natural world. (That is, religion has the authority to answer values type of questions, while science answer questions about how things work.) However, the problem is that no religion limits itself to that realm AND the realm of ethics and morality and values is part of the natural world anyway.

I don't think that's at odds with the way I put it at all. You can't teach a truth without first discerning what it is, ie. solving a problem. The first part of your criticism of NOMA that religion does not limit itself to ethics/morality is, IMO, rendered irrelevant by the second part, which is essentially my point. There really is only one magisterium. We just talk as if there are others.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Why isn't JREF an atheist organisation?

Because the JREF isn't an atheist organization.

[A.A. Alfie]

Mate, I love you like a brother.

I can test for it.



No, no, no.

That's why I said and will repeat:

First off, we must decide on exactly what "love" is.

Now, I can't imagine our mutual Platonic love for each other is the same beast as the love I share with Mrs Atheist. I can explain both in quite simple terms, but they are totally different things, so we really need to step back to my initial point.

Also, since it's completely, off topic, no doubt one of our esteemed moderators will shift it all off to a new thread where we can look at your wuestion in depth.

If you start a thread along the lines of: "Does love exist?" let me know.



Ping!

Define the term.

I don't go in for this pansy "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" mumbo-jumbo. JUst define the term first. Not for discussion here, but what is bonding if it isn't love? You could the thread off with that as an example.

:bgrin:



That's good news, because you're about to be corrected and I'm a lot more delighted by your willingness to change your mind than I was by the Windies missing a nice win!

Atheist: does not believe in god.

Atheists who insist there is no god form a part of those atheists, just as agnostics do, as one of the admins is pointing out to someone in this very thread.

Even though someone might be hiding behind the "we don't know" banner, if they do not actively believe in at least one god, then they're also atheists.

Harsh, but true.



Unknowable is always such an un-agnostic word, I feel. Douglas Adams did agnosticism and knowing rather well.

We cannot know!

If you know that you can not know - i.e. something is unknowable, then you suddenly don't look too much like an agnostic any more.

Cheers

Two things
On the definition of love.
I have none, and hence my question/challenge to have it tested, as well as the offer for you guys to select your own form; I felt than given my personal lack of definition I would leave it up to you. I could no more define it than try and describe why New Zealand cricket is shambolic; I can't, I just accept that it is.

Any way, the offer is still there, make your own definitions and then test it. Seriously, I am interested.

Second
Agnostic

I might have to find another word to describe my position then. Please help me...

I see that it is possible for there to be god. I also see that it is improbable there is god.
I don't go to church - save weddings and funerals where appropriate.

What am I (apart from confused)? Thycurious?

[Prometheus]

...
I might have to find another word to describe my position then. Please help me...

I see that it is possible for there to be god. I also see that it is improbable there is god.
I don't go to church - save weddings and funerals where appropriate.

What am I (apart from confused)? Thycurious?

Atheist. :)

[athon]

Two things
On the definition of love.
I have none, and hence my question/challenge to have it tested, as well as the offer for you guys to select your own form; I felt than given my personal lack of definition I would leave it up to you. I could no more define it than try and describe why New Zealand cricket is shambolic; I can't, I just accept that it is.

I'm certain you'd have an opinion on which definitions are useful and which aren't.

Any way, the offer is still there, make your own definitions and then test it. Seriously, I am interested.

So if I defined love as a feeling that correlated with levels and frequency of release of oxytocin, and then studied this within a population, you'd have no problem with this as a measurement of love?

(*note: oxytocin is indeed a hormone correlated with those 'warm' feelings of attachment and love an individual has, especially regarding mothers and their infants)

Athon

[Skeptic Ginger]

With respect, Skeptigirl, you're avoiding the question. Are you or are you not saying that a belief in something not testable is an illogical belief?

You said you were confident you could defend that view. If this claim cannot be tested then surely it is self defeating? Can you suggest a scientific test?I'm not avoiding any question. You may not agree with or understand my answer. But that is a different thing from avoiding a question. You want me to answer that I agree with you but I do not. This is not something I have spent little time thinking about. I have a different perspective on this than many people. But I have come to that perspective after careful thought.

Is it logical to say you cannot test fiction scientifically? Does that mean fiction does not exist? Or does it mean fiction could be real but you cannot say with science that it is or isn't?

The problem I have with your scenario is that you would have to conclude fiction could be real and science could not say if it was or was not. That is not logical to me. We can investigate the source of the fiction. We can discover the author or the history of the story and the characteristics that make it fiction.

You want to limit science to just testing Harry Potter's world and not apply science to the discovery of whether Potter is a fictional being or not.

I understand the semantics. I know all about the excuse that was devised years ago saying magical beliefs were not subject to scientific investigation.

But my world is rational and so I don't look at the question the same way you are looking at it. Can I test the wing shape of a rock that has no wings? Does that mean I cannot test that rock for anything?

It is not logical to test the wingless rock for the shape of its wings any more than I can test a fictional thing for its fictional claim. But make the claim gods or Harry Potter exists and you've made a testable claim. If you are not saying gods exist then testing the claim you haven't made is absurd. But, that in no way means gods are not fictional.

The thing is either you are saying the god exists or you've said nothing at all. To say, I am going to say the name, god, but make no claims, how does that even make sense? Claim the god exists and you've made a claim.

It's an argument in semantics to say you have said 'god' but you didn't claim said god exists.


In summary, if you are not saying god exists, then we are done. If you are saying god exists that is a testable claim. I would focus the test on the evidence the god was a fictional being. I am not limited to just testing the god the way you see fit.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the evidence supports the conclusion that most (if not all) observed human god beliefs do not refer to actual beings. Your argument is valid, but it relies on a hidden premise (That if there's really a god or gods, it/they want to be known). An omnipotent being that wants us to think there are no gods would certainly be capable of sweeping up any evidence to the contrary. I realize this is splitting metaphysical hairs, but I'm a recovering Philosophy Major, and sometimes I just can't help myself. :)My conclusion relies on the premise that once you see a clear pattern and that pattern is supported with overwhelming evidence, you can draw a conclusion about the whole.

Are you an agnostic about evolution because we have not mapped out every genome on the planet? Or have you seen enough evidence to draw a conclusion about evolution processes applying to all life on Earth?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl, do you see that your complaining about Plaitt's position on NOMA got him fired?
;):D

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yep, four of them.
Glue bonds; I love my kids

Now how about measuring and testing it (or any other type of love).

It's your claim, not mine.
Can you back it up or not?If you wish to have a rational discussion, you will have to define love as you are using the term. Love is not a magical thing any more than sadness is magical. Emotions are biological brain processes. Humans are biological beings, we are not magical fairies with souls that exist outside our physical selves.

If you view love as a fictional rather than a biological process we should just agree to disagree because in my view, brains are biological things and you have no evidence that is not the case.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I'm really hoping more and more people will adopt my use of "atheist" since as I'll have mentioned elsewhere it leaves the "belief" element where it belongs i.e. with those that are making a claim.How about you adopt my belief, there is overwhelming evidence gods are fictional beings. It's silly to go on leaving the door open when it's obvious god beliefs are primitive things humans are growing out of.

;) :D

[Prometheus]

My conclusion relies on the premise that once you see a clear pattern and that pattern is supported with overwhelming evidence, you can draw a conclusion about the whole.

Are you an agnostic about evolution because we have not mapped out every genome on the planet? Or have you seen enough evidence to draw a conclusion about evolution processes applying to all life on Earth?

AFAIK, I'm not agnostic about anything. It's always possible, at least in principle, to learn the truth about any proposition, evil demons and vatted brains notwithstanding. I'm an atheist. I've seen no evidence for the existence of any god or gods, and I find the notion that such beings might exist to be illogical--which is exactly what I would expect to be the case if, in fact, there were an omnipotent god who was an evil, vindictive, stark raving psychopath, full of hatred and jealousy (like the one in the Old Testament). It's impossible to draw an apt analogy between theism and evolution, though, because evolution is wholly rational and makes no untestable claims.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You aren't addressing the point and throw in irrelevancies. I didn't say anything about there being some magical thing. In my world view there aren't any magical feelings either, and I fully accept that human emotions are entirely the result of underlying neurology and biochemistry. But I do not think that the only valid way to look at love is measuring and describing its objective characteristics. There is also subjective experience.I'm not quite sure what the problem is here. Did I say the only way to look at love was through science? We were talking about the fact one could look at love scientifically, not that you could only look at it that way.

I fully agree that it is a biological process, but I don't think you can provide any scientific evidence that it is "wonderful process"; that's a subjective value judgement that falls outside the magisterium of science.I also never said there was no magisteria outside science though I can see how that has been misinterpreted. My point is that religion, especially god beliefs, can indeed be investigated with the scientific process. I merely object to using the NOMa as an excuse to avoid any critical thinking about god beliefs. And I object to the double standard claiming somehow people get something of value from god woo they don't get from other woo. I don't buy that.

[A.A. Alfie]

If you wish to have a rational discussion, you will have to define love as you are using the term. Love is not a magical thing any more than sadness is magical. Emotions are biological brain processes. Humans are biological beings, we are not magical fairies with souls that exist outside our physical selves.

If you view love as a fictional rather than a biological process we should just agree to disagree because in my view, brains are biological things and you have no evidence that is not the case.

If that's the way you want it fine.
It was you who said you could test it, not me.
I simply made a genuine request for you to show me how to test and measure.
You have moved the goalposts a few times and continue to do so. I have even given ground a few times to help you out. Still you play scemantics.

You bluffed, I called. You fail.

How about you adopt my belief, there is overwhelming evidence gods are fictional beings. It's silly to go on leaving the door open when it's obvious god beliefs are primitive things humans are growing out of.

You have been asked for evidence of this before too. None forthcoming except the same old unwinnable arguments.
Sorry SG, but you have your belief and understanding, not evidence.
my bold

[Skeptic Ginger]

...."Magisterium" as Gould uses it, refers to a type of problem rather than an approach to solving it. NOMA posits that the science and religion deal with different sorts of problems altogether.And that I definitely don't buy. That's like saying god beliefs are akin to love and wonderment and whatever the other 'things' that were outside the realm of science that were mentioned here.

In reality god beliefs are more akin to the placebo effect and the benefits one gets from false hope. It is a myth people get moral beliefs from religion other than dogmatic belief about sexual mores that one would just as easily get from social influences that are not religion based. The harshest of social requirements come from religion. Societies would be much better off without religious dogma influencing rules of behavior.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....According to Gould, religion's teaching-realm is ethics & morality and the like, while science's is the natural world. (That is, religion has the authority to answer values type of questions, while science answer questions about how things work.) However, the problem is that no religion limits itself to that realm AND the realm of ethics and morality and values is part of the natural world anyway.See now I think this is the old view. In a paradigm shift to a more enlightened view, the human animal, just like all other species on Earth, evolved. And as such, behavior, be it moral behavior or the values we express, is the result of evolution, both biological and sociological. You can discuss the influence of society on the biological being's morals and other values. But the idea these values and morals come from some religion, god belief, or other 'special' source is false. And, it is a less useful context that viewing social cultural influences for what they are, human sourced influences.

[Egg]

I'm not avoiding any question. You may not agree with or understand my answer. But that is a different thing from avoiding a question. You want me to answer that I agree with you but I do not. This is not something I have spent little time thinking about. I have a different perspective on this than many people. But I have come to that perspective after careful thought.

Is it logical to say you cannot test fiction scientifically? Does that mean fiction does not exist? Or does it mean fiction could be real but you cannot say with science that it is or isn't?

The problem I have with your scenario is that you would have to conclude fiction could be real and science could not say if it was or was not. That is not logical to me. We can investigate the source of the fiction. We can discover the author or the history of the story and the characteristics that make it fiction.

You want to limit science to just testing Harry Potter's world and not apply science to the discovery of whether Potter is a fictional being or not.

I understand the semantics. I know all about the excuse that was devised years ago saying magical beliefs were not subject to scientific investigation.

But my world is rational and so I don't look at the question the same way you are looking at it. Can I test the wing shape of a rock that has no wings? Does that mean I cannot test that rock for anything?

It is not logical to test the wingless rock for the shape of its wings any more than I can test a fictional thing for its fictional claim. But make the claim gods or Harry Potter exists and you've made a testable claim. If you are not saying gods exist then testing the claim you haven't made is absurd. But, that in no way means gods are not fictional.

The thing is either you are saying the god exists or you've said nothing at all. To say, I am going to say the name, god, but make no claims, how does that even make sense? Claim the god exists and you've made a claim.

It's an argument in semantics to say you have said 'god' but you didn't claim said god exists.


In summary, if you are not saying god exists, then we are done. If you are saying god exists that is a testable claim. I would focus the test on the evidence the god was a fictional being. I am not limited to just testing the god the way you see fit.
You seem to be missing the point still - or intentionally avoiding it. The point is one about your philosophical position on what to conclude about a claim that either cannot be tested in principle or even that we currently have no way to test. You seem to be suggesting that believing in something that cannot be scientifically tested is an illogical position to take, but this suggestion itself is a philosophical position and, as far as I can see, cannot be tested by science.

The point, I believe, is relevant to the topic in so far that skepticism is a method, a way of approaching claims. Assuming something doesn't exist because we don't have evidence is not a logical position to take (it's a logical fallacy). The skeptical approach can get no further than "we don't know" in such a case. Other conclusions come from something other than science, such as from a particular philosophical position. If we try to apply skepticism to these philosophical positions we don't get very far.

It seems to me that your philosophical position defeats itself, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but probably not by irrelevant Harry Potter analogies.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cheers

Two things
On the definition of love.
I have none, and hence my question/challenge to have it tested, as well as the offer for you guys to select your own form; I felt than given my personal lack of definition I would leave it up to you. I could no more define it than try and describe why New Zealand cricket is shambolic; I can't, I just accept that it is.So you have no definition of love but you want someone to test it. Talk about trying to stack the deck. :rolleyes:

[A.A. Alfie]

So you have no definition of love but you want someone to test it. Talk about trying to stack the deck. :rolleyes:

Your words.
Your claims.
Your responsibility.

Again, use any definition you like.
My enquiry was and is genuine.

Can you or can't you?

[Skeptic Ginger]

AFAIK, I'm not agnostic about anything. It's always possible, at least in principle, to learn the truth about any proposition, evil demons and vatted brains notwithstanding. I'm an atheist. I've seen no evidence for the existence of any god or gods, and I find the notion that such beings might exist to be illogical--which is exactly what I would expect to be the case if, in fact, there were an omnipotent god who was an evil, vindictive, stark raving psychopath, full of hatred and jealousy (like the one in the Old Testament). It's impossible to draw an apt analogy between theism and evolution, though, because evolution is wholly rational and makes no untestable claims.In your view, perhaps. But that is not my view.

Like I said above, if you are not saying any god exists then why even bring it up? If you are saying a god exists or even that a god could exist, those are testable claims.

Could a god exist? While I have no issue with the scientific principle anything is possible, I take issue with the inappropriate use of applying that principle to things for which there is no evidence for, and especially for things for which there is evidence for, but that evidence is being left out of the discussion.

In the case of god beliefs, the real problem is leaving out of the discussion the evidence gods are fictional beings. The scientific principle anything is possible is inappropriately used time and time again as if it was evidence god beliefs have validity. And that is what the problem is.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If that's the way you want it fine.
It was you who said you could test it, not me.
I simply made a genuine request for you to show me how to test and measure.
You have moved the goalposts a few times and continue to do so. I have even given ground a few times to help you out. Still you play scemantics.

You bluffed, I called. You fail.Let's be clear here. You said test something you were thinking of but for which you refused to define and you rejected my definition.

When you get around to defining love, and supporting the basis of your definition, get back to me.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You seem to be missing the point still - or intentionally avoiding it. You must be intentionally trying not to understand my post. :rolleyes:

Have you ever heard a lawyer or a politician try to force a false position out of someone? The interview in Congress by a Republican lawyer-legislator climate change denier interviewing Rick Piltz is a good example. It's hard to find the transcript but the exchange went something like this:

Lawyer/legislator: "So the climate science is uncertain?"
Piltz:"Science uses language of uncertainty, but the climate evidence is strong."
Lawyer/legislator: "So you cannot say with certainty the climate is warming?"
Piltz:"Science doesn't try to prove without a doubt but the evidence is more than convincing."
Lawyer/legislator: "Can you or can you not say with certainty the climate is warming?"
Piltz:"That is not how science answers that question."

Maybe you will or will not understand this analogy, however, I do think it applies here. It doesn't appear I'll be getting through to you anytime soon. Suffice it to say, I do not view the Universe from your view point. I'm happy to continue the discussion, but only if you drop the petty crap that I am intentionally not answering. The only intentional thing I am doing here is trying to explain my point of view to you. You don't have to agree. But you should at least try to understand what I've said before you go complaining the answer doesn't fit your pigeon hole.


I will address the rest of your post in a separate reply. I wanted to make it clear you are using insulting and unproductive language in your posts.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your words.
Your claims.
Your responsibility.

Again, use any definition you like.
My enquiry was and is genuine.

Can you or can't you?I did. You didn't like my definition of one kind of love. It's not up to me to guess what your definition of love is. Love is a biological thing and as such it is testable, measurable, and describable. As a magical thing, love does not really exist. That is a fantasy version of what love is.

[Earthborn]

So you have no definition of love but you want someone to test it. Talk about trying to stack the deck. :rolleyes:Isn't that the whole point? "Love" lacks a clear definition and therefore can't be tested, therefore it falls outside the magisterium of science... even if its objectively measurable characteristics are undoubtedly biological and can be studied by science.

[Skeptic Ginger]

... The point is one about your philosophical position on what to conclude about a claim that either cannot be tested in principle or even that we currently have no way to test. You seem to be suggesting that believing in something that cannot be scientifically tested is an illogical position to take, but this suggestion itself is a philosophical position and, as far as I can see, cannot be tested by science."Believing in", that is your problem. I translate that to [x] exists. Existence is a testable claim. You want to believe in something and claim you are not saying it exists at the same time?

...The point, I believe, is relevant to the topic in so far that skepticism is a method, a way of approaching claims. Assuming something doesn't exist because we don't have evidence is not a logical position to take (it's a logical fallacy). Again, there are two kinds of claims when it comes to absence of evidence, one is a claim that still is truly an open question. We don't know and probably cannot know what happened before the Big Bang. We don't know if there are other universes.

The other kind of claim is totally fabricated. Can you prove Hogwartz is not a real place? Can you prove gods don't exist? In these claims it is false to say we have an absence of evidence. We have an equally important scientific principle that says follow the evidence to the conclusion, don't try to fit the evidence to the conclusion. If you do that the evidence is clear, Hogwartz is fictional and gods are fictional. END of story.

You are trying to apply the principle that new evidence could come along. True, but that doesn't stop us from drawing reasonable conclusions such as the fact evolution theory applies to all life on Earth and we don't have to test every organism to conclude that. You may not have seen enough evidence to conclude all gods are fictional, but I have.

We can conclude that fiction is fun, it's nice, but it is not evidence something exists. Outside the Universe and before the Big Bang are reasonable things to conclude we don't know. Hogwartz and gods are not reasonable things to conclude we don't know.

...The skeptical approach can get no further than "we don't know" in such a case. Other conclusions come from something other than science, such as from a particular philosophical position. If we try to apply skepticism to these philosophical positions we don't get very far.

It seems to me that your philosophical position defeats itself, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but probably not by irrelevant Harry Potter analogies.Potter is just as fictional as gods are. Do you have one shred of evidence to the contrary? I repeat, You may not have seen enough evidence to conclude all gods are fictional, but I have. As for the, "can go no further", that boggles my mind. All the evidence we have that gods are fictional yet you cannot quite draw a general conclusion from that. Amazing.

[A.A. Alfie]

Let's be clear here. You said test something you were thinking of but for which you refused to define and you rejected my definition.

When you get around to defining love, and supporting the basis of your definition, get back to me.

You can't then, fine.
I had a genuine question.
I'm over it:p

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can't then, fine.
I had a genuine question.
I'm over it:pFine then, you cannot define love and you have no supportable claim love is not a biological process. Good enough.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't that the whole point? "Love" lacks a clear definition and therefore can't be tested, therefore it falls outside the magisterium of science... even if its objectively measurable characteristics are undoubtedly biological and can be studied by science.If you refuse to define it and you reject the definition it is a biological process? No, that was not a valid point in my book.

[Prometheus]

....if you are not saying any god exists then why even bring it up?

I don't bring it up. I respond when others do.


If you are saying a god exists or even that a god could exist, those are testable claims.

Just out of curiosity, how would you actually test, say, the Hindu claim that there's an evil and all-powerful god of deception responsible for the illusion that we call the natural world?


Could a god exist? While I have no issue with the scientific principle anything is possible, I take issue with the inappropriate use of applying that principle to things for which there is no evidence for, and especially for things for which there is evidence for, but that evidence is being left out of the discussion.

When is the 'anything's possible' principle appropriate if not before there's evidence either for or against whatever outlandish possibility one is concerned with?

More importantly, exactly which evidence is being left out of the discussion?

Besides, the Yaohnanen tribe actually has photographic evidence that their god exists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement). :D


In the case of god beliefs, the real problem is leaving out of the discussion the evidence gods are fictional beings. The scientific principle anything is possible is inappropriately used time and time again as if it was evidence god beliefs have validity. And that is what the problem is.

It seems like you are conflating 'gods' with 'god-beliefs' Of course there's all sorts of evidence that people's god-beliefs are works of fiction. This has no bearing at all on whether the objects of those beliefs happen to exist or not. You know, "Any resemblance to deities, living or dead, is purely coincidental," and all that. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic Ginger]

It may be hard for some of you to understand my paradigm shift away from the magisterial purview of the magical humanism. I don't have an issue about enjoying life. I enjoy it tremendously. I don't think one needs to be concerned about analyzing enjoyment or love via the scientific process. But that doesn't mean love and enjoyment are so unique as to be beyond biology.

I reject the magical world where love is somehow separate from our biological selves. Morals don't materialize out of nowhere. Religion and society may influence the individual's moral self, but they are not the 'source' of morality. Biology is. The brain does not have some magical esoteric center that is beyond the natural universe.

Humans are the result of biological evolution just as every other species on the planet is. We don't have any special qualities beyond our unique language and technological abilities. Our biological selves are influenced by the real or rational Universe, not by some esoteric magical universe.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't bring it up. I respond when others do.Then they make the claim gods exist.


Just out of curiosity, how would you actually test, say, the Hindu claim that there's an evil and all-powerful god of deception responsible for the illusion that we call the natural world?Same way I've been discussing here. I'd look for evidence that belief was any less fictional than comparable beliefs. No such evidence exists. Hindu beliefs are just as fictional as every other religion.


When is the 'anything's possible' principle appropriate if not before there's evidence either for or against whatever outlandish possibility one is concerned with?

More importantly, exactly which evidence is being left out of the discussion?The evidence people have made up fictional gods over and over again. We even have retrospective prediction which was then observed when the Cargo Cults were observed developing in historical times. The Mormon religion developed in historical times.

Besides, the Yaohnanen tribe actually has photographic evidence that their god exists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement). :DSee, you are familiar with an observed god myth developing and yet you still aren't sure the evidence is convincing that gods are mythical beings created by humans.


It seems like you are conflating 'gods' with 'god-beliefs' Of course there's all sorts of evidence that people's god-beliefs are works of fiction. This has no bearing at all on whether the objects of those beliefs happen to exist or not. You know, "Any resemblance to deities, living or dead, is purely coincidental," and all that. :rolleyes:No but there is evidence that whatever inspired god beliefs was not anything supernatural. You provided an example in this post.

Look at the entire Judeo/Christian/Islamic religion. All three religions grew from the same myths and texts. The Biblical texts (or Koran or Talmud) contain no evidence of any knowledge suggesting a supernatural source of information. The texts lack awareness of the germ theory. No need to avoid pork, they could have just cooked it thoroughly. No evidence the people were aware of the rest of the world's peoples and so on. One can find example after example these texts were written by men.

I'm confident the Hindu texts and all the others contain the same lack of supernatural evidence within them. These are works of fiction. Why do you give any credence to the idea maybe, despite all the overwhelming evidence, that there still might be a real god somewhere?

Not me. I'm content there is more than enough evidence to call this stuff fiction.

[Prometheus]

Then they make the claim gods exist.

Huh?

Same way I've been discussing here. I'd look for evidence that belief was any less fictional than comparable beliefs. No such evidence exists. Hindu beliefs are just as fictional as every other religion.


That's not a test.

The evidence people have made up fictional gods over and over again. We even have retrospective prediction which was then observed when the Cargo Cults were observed developing in historical times. The Mormon religion developed in historical times.

See, you are familiar with an observed god myth developing and yet you still aren't sure the evidence is convincing that gods are mythical beings created by humans.

This is a fallacious argument. Evidence that humans create false beliefs is exactly that: evidence that the beliefs are false. It says nothing whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of any gods.


No but there is evidence that whatever inspired god beliefs was not anything supernatural. You provided an example in this post.

Of course! This supports my point, not undermines it.

Look at the entire Judeo/Christian/Islamic religion. All three religions grew from the same myths and texts. The Biblical texts (or Koran or Talmud) contain no evidence of any knowledge suggesting a supernatural source of information. The texts lack awareness of the germ theory. No need to avoid pork, they could have just cooked it thoroughly. No evidence the people were aware of the rest of the world's peoples and so on. One can find example after example these texts were written by men. I'm confident the Hindu texts and all the others contain the same lack of supernatural evidence within them. These are works of fiction.

And again, we have no disagreement on this point at all. Only on what you can ultimately infer from it.


Why do you give any credence to the idea maybe, despite all the overwhelming evidence, that there still might be a real god somewhere?

I don't. I'm an atheist. I keep telling you that. I'm just pointing out that the evidence that there cannot possibly be any gods is not overwhelming. It doesn't need to be. Atheism is properly the default position, and the burden of proof rests squarely on anyone who opposes it.

And yes, we are looking at the same evidence. It does not mean what you think it means.

Not me. I'm content there is more than enough evidence to call this stuff fiction.

I agree. If I write an account of my previous career as an Argentinian ranch hand, then I have produced a work of fiction. I may even make a habit of writing false autobiographies that take place in locations I've never visited. If some clever reader should notice that my descriptions of these places are off, and the events I describe impossible, this would in no way be evidence that those places don't exist--just that I don't really know about them.

[Earthborn]

Did I say the only way to look at love was through science?No, but you have criticised others for pointing out that there are others ways to look at it, completely misunderstanding the argument.

We were talking about the fact one could look at love scientifically, not that you could only look at it that way.No, we were talking about the fact that while one could look at love scientifically, other views that fall outside of science and therefore belong to different magisteria can also be valid.

I also never said there was no magisteria outside science though I can see how that has been misinterpreted.I can see how that has been misinterpreted too. You claimed that any example of magisteria outside of science was "bull".

My point is that religion, especially god beliefs, can indeed be investigated with the scientific process.Then your point is irrelevant, because no one claimed god beliefs can't be scientifically studied.

And I object to the double standard claiming somehow people get something of value from god woo they don't get from other woo. I don't buy that.Claiming that people get something out of god beliefs isn't a double standard. It is just true. The only thing that is arguably a "double standard" in this discussion is having different standards for testable and non-testable claims.

[Earthborn]

If you refuse to define it and you reject the definition it is a biological process? No, that was not a valid point in my book.I'll refer to a quote by someone who apparently thinks it is a valid point:Did I say the only way to look at love was through science? We were talking about the fact one could look at love scientifically, not that you could only look at it that way.

[Earthborn]

It may be hard for some of you to understand my paradigm shift away from the magisterial purview of the magical humanism.Don't talk gibberish.

I don't have an issue about enjoying life. I enjoy it tremendously. I don't think one needs to be concerned about analyzing enjoyment or love via the scientific process.Then why pretend to disagree with anyone for pointing out that there are other ways to approach life than science?

But that doesn't mean love and enjoyment are so unique as to be beyond biology.No one here claimed otherwise.

I reject the magical world where love is somehow separate from our biological selves.No one here claimed there is such a magical world.

Morals don't materialize out of nowhere.No one here claimed otherwise.

Religion and society may influence the individual's moral self, but they are not the 'source' of morality.No one here claimed otherwise. It is was claimed that science cannot answer moral questions, because science tries to steer away from value judgements. Other magisteria may have the appropriate tools to approach the questions, though not likely to definitively answer them.

Biology is.That's a rather reductionist view. You might as well claim that chemistry or physics is the source of morality, even though they don't deal with moral questions at all. Why claim that morality needs a "source" at all?

The brain does not have some magical esoteric center that is beyond the natural universe. No one here claimed that it did.

Our biological selves are influenced by the real or rational Universe, not by some esoteric magical universe.No one here claimed that there was a magical universe.

[A.A. Alfie]

Love is a biological thing and as such it is testable, measurable, and describable. As a magical thing, love does not really exist. That is a fantasy version of what love is.

Love is more than just biology. There are other scientific factors involved including chemical, sensory and intellectual.
There are others too that are not based in science

Neither is love just "bonding" as you have previously suggested. It is a factor, not the factor; it is just a part of the whole.

You say you can describe love, but I have yet to see your description.
You say you can measure love, but with what?
You say you can test love, but we see no tool.
"Why is that?", one is drawn to ask?

The feelings I can have for a child's small successes isn't simply bonding. Their first step, first day of school, academic or sporting achievement. This is not biology either.
Can you test and measure pride? That too is a type of love, or a feeling borne of love. Do other animals feel pride?

Is genuine affection simply bonding? I think not.
I might bond with my dog, but that is a lot different from the deep (dare I say, spiritual) love and passion that I have and feel for my wife. Or is love a matter of simple biomatching, something you could obtain through a dating service? Is that what you are saying? Is that your test?

I might say that I love ice cream. Is that bonding too?
Or that I love freedom, or sport, or my garden. Bonding? Lust? Biology?
I love animals, the great outdoors/nature and the flowers. Bonding, lust or biology?
And what of the man or woman who gives his their to their God or faith. Is that a test, or a measure, or a mere description of their sacrifice for love. Or is it again your bonding, lust and biology?

I love my fellow man, I might also love all the individual people of the earth - yet I don't know them all. Have I bonded with them too? Lust, biology?

Great poets wrote of love. Were Browning, Keates and Shakespeare talking of bonding? I doubt it. Lust, possibly. Wonder, awe and magic? Probably.

Is the measure of love what we will do to protect that love, or is it a test that we would be prepared to let it go?
Does one who will fight another for love show a true test of love? Or is that the opposite? Is jealousy the test? Or is this simply lust?

Is the protection a parent shows for their children biology and bonding alone? I would hope not.
Or is it the one who lays down his life for another (greater love hath no man..) who shows true love?

What is the test?

Is the first kiss with a true love not magical?
Or a child's laughter.
The love between an old couple holding hands in the park. Can you test that love? The one love of a lifetime? Is that lust, or biology or simply bonding? I doubt it, and so - I suggest would they.

Does love not feed the soul? How should we test that?
Does not love generate more love? Is it not exponential? How can we use science to test that?

When my heart breaks, is that lust, bonding or biology? No, it is the great grief that comes with great love and a great love lost. Can you test or measure for that? Or for that matter, measure my grief.

Love is magical.

All the mysteries of life are not uncovered, and as such not all can be explained by science as yet, seek as we try.
There remains magic in the world regardless of what you say. I see it every day. In love.

I feel sad for you, that you can't.

[athon]

Cheers

Two things
On the definition of love.
I have none, and hence my question/challenge to have it tested, as well as the offer for you guys to select your own form; I felt than given my personal lack of definition I would leave it up to you. I could no more define it than try and describe why New Zealand cricket is shambolic; I can't, I just accept that it is.
Love is more than just biology. There are other scientific factors involved including chemical, sensory and intellectual.
There are others too that are not based in science

Neither is love just "bonding" as you have previously suggested. It is a factor, not the factor; it is just a part of the whole. *snip*


For somebody who can't define it, you seem to think you know an awful lot about what it is and is not. ;)

I think you're trying to have it both ways.

Athon

[A.A. Alfie]

For somebody who can't define it, you seem to think you know an awful lot about what it is and is not. ;)

I think you're trying to have it both ways.

Athon

I just gave it some thought, and started waxing ridiculous.

[athon]

I just gave it some thought, and started waxing ridiculous.

Hehe. If it was a poetry class, I'd give you an A. If it was philosophy, maybe a B-. :p

Athon

[A.A. Alfie]

Hehe. If it was a poetry class, I'd give you an A. If it was philosophy, maybe a B-. :p

Athon

Thanks, that means a lot coming from our resident and current champion.;)

[The Atheist]

Cheers

Two things
On the definition of love.
I have none, and hence my question/challenge to have it tested, as well as the offer for you guys to select your own form; I felt than given my personal lack of definition I would leave it up to you. I could no more define it than try and describe why New Zealand cricket is shambolic; I can't, I just accept that it is.

Good analogy, there's a rational explanation for both, but it's off-topic, so start a thread or ask the mods to split off the posts on the subject of love.

Any way, the offer is still there, make your own definitions and then test it. Seriously, I am interested.

Ok, then go ahead!

Second
Agnostic

I might have to find another word to describe my position then. Please help me...

I see that it is possible for there to be god. I also see that it is improbable there is god.
I don't go to church - save weddings and funerals where appropriate.

What am I (apart from confused)? Thycurious?

An atheist agnostic.