'Can skeptics believe in God' in Commentary - Randi misunderstands?

[bignickel]

This thread is only for the discussion of this section in the COMMENTARY. There are a zillion threads elsewhere if you want to revisit the whole issue (which is a pointless issue, but that's neither here nor there)

This thread exists for one thing: to ask if Randi misunderstood why the question was posed to him.

One of the last questions brought up at the 'skeptics and god' panel was a direct 'ending' question: can a skeptic believe in a god?

Randi's answer was a direct 'no'.

But if you check out this week's commentary... it seems to directly contradict the 'no' that I and many others thought we heard Randi say. And the question doesn't directly lead to one thinking Randi had said no.

Could Randi have misheard the question posed at the end of the panel discussion, perhaps as "do skeptics have to disbelieve in god" or somesuch?

(again, this thread is only for whatever Randi's thoughts are; discussion of the merits or lack thereof of the actual question can be done elsewhere)

[Jeff Wagg]

You know what? I screwed up. Please read the updated commetary.

Randi's conclusion at the end was actually part of the original letter from Eric. Randi had not written a response to Eric's letter before he was hospitalized.

This is entirely my fault, and I'm sorry for the confusion it caused.

I have spoken with Randi a lot about this issue, and I know that he doesn't believe in excluding anyone from the skeptical community.

[kittynh]

It's clearer now Jeff. It think it is a great letter.

And honestly, no matter what Mr.RAndi believes, I think he believes that believers, agnostics, atheists and such all belong here at JREF.

Some may be MORE skeptical than others!

Those who might think Mr.Randi's "no" was a cry to oust the believers (in anything...or those still defining and struggling with their belief) from JREF are still going to be dissapointed in my opinion. Let's just say Mr.RAndi KNOWS my background, and he still used my story in the commentary (which I should say Jeff made me look GOOD, thanks for making it a little clearer).

[T'ai Chi]

When I read the commentary I wondered why one would have to choose between looking for angels and reading a book on clouds in the library.

Why not both?

[Jeff Wagg]

I had a private conversation that I can't share the contents of today, but rest assured, Randi has more to say on this topic. What he said at TAM was not the whole story.

[Dark Jaguar]

I myself can say I was holding that duel position of believing in God while realizing that it was a completely untennable position at the same time. That was near the end, but eventually I just couldn't keep it. It was too much of a contradictory stance with too many problems. I can't say that one who believes in a diety can't be skeptical in other areas just as well though.

I will add this. Someone who bases all of their beliefs on critical thinking can easily believe in God if there is evidence leading to that conclusion :D.

[Melendwyr]

What about people who believe that UFOs kidnap people from their beds in order to perform strange medical experiments upon them, but don't try to convince others, pass laws concerning alien visitations, or otherwise make their faith public?

Are we really going to exclude these people from the skeptical community?

Of course we are. And we'll be justified in doing so.

Now explain to me what makes belief in an omnipresent, all-powerful and all-seeing entity who created the universe, set a plethora of impossible-to-meet moral standards for human beings, then somehow incarnated itself in human form to be horribly killed in order to satisfy the conditions set forth for failing to meet those standards more rational than UFO abductions.

[bignickel]

I have spoken with Randi a lot about this issue, and I know that he doesn't believe in excluding anyone from the skeptical community.

This is what I have suspected since the meeting. Hopefully, the Amazing One will recover soon and regale us more with some of his wit.

(I've heard that there's some telemarketer on the TV offering 'natural cures'; perhaps this would be just thing to speed recovery ;) )

(another aside yet again; please curtail any discussion of the actual question to many other threads on the forum; this thread is just for whatever Randi's thoughts are on matter)

[Pyrrho]

Once again, a skeptic can believe in God or not believe in God, but he can't be certain.

I don't believe in God. I'm not certain. If you're certain God exists, you're not a skeptic where God is concerned. It really is that simple.

Whether or not belief in God means a person isn't skeptical about psychics is another question. It's like saying you believe in the supernatural but make certain exceptions. That is equivocation that doesn't work well for anyone describing themselves as a "skeptic"...and there has been much argumentation about what "skeptic" means in the first place. The definitions of words are so mutable these days, it's sometimes hard to figure out what people are saying...if they're saying anything at all.

[jjramsey]

Once again, a skeptic can believe in God or not believe in God, but he can't be certain.

Or a skeptic may feel certain that God exists, but recognize that this certainty is nonrational.

[bignickel]

ONCE AGAIN: there are threads to discuss this question all over the The Amazing Meeting subfora. Take such discussions there.

This thread is only about Randi's thoughts on the matter.

[CFLarsen]

I had a private conversation that I can't share the contents of today, but rest assured, Randi has more to say on this topic. What he said at TAM was not the whole story.

...well, DUH!

Of course Randi has more to say on this topic. :)

[kittynh]

And if someone that believes in UFOs wants to join JREF, there is nothing stopping them. I certainly don't think they are going to get "kicked out".



I know a minister that send Mr.Randi a check after reading Mr.Randi's book on the faith healers.

[kittynh]

seriously, if Mr.Randi wants to add a check list about what you do and do not believe before he will let you become a member of JREF, then that would be ok. Because this is HIS group.

I mean, I hate Bush, and I'm still a Republican. They can't kick me out. Much as they would probably like to!

[Moochie]

Well, semantics aside, I reckon if you believe without evidence and call yourself a skeptic you are redefining the meaning.

Goodnight, and good luck.

M.

[Pyrrho]

The issue has been addressed previously in SWIFT:

http://www.randi.org/jr/050903.html

http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html

http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html

[Moochie]

The issue may well have been previously addressed, but given the fact that many may have missed those discussions, and given the many newcomers since those discussions, and given the nascent nature of one's understanding of such discussions, I find it exceedingly odd that you would curtail further discussion.

Your doing so changes my entire view of these forums.

M.

[Melendwyr]

This thread is only about Randi's thoughts on the matter. Then since Randi hasn't been able to express any thoughts on the matter, the thread never should have been started in the first place.

Politician.

[Pyrrho]

The issue may well have been previously addressed, but given the fact that many may have missed those discussions, and given the many newcomers since those discussions, and given the nascent nature of one's understanding of such discussions, I find it exceedingly odd that you would curtail further discussion.

Your doing so changes my entire view of these forums.

M.
I'm confused...I haven't curtailed anything here...perhaps I misunderstand. The links I posted provide reference to Randi's previous thoughts on the matter and previous discussion of the question in Randi's Commentary. Hopefully, they will provide substance for this specific topic.

[Moochie]

Perhaps I misunderstood.

If so, I apologize.

M.

[Pyrrho]

I think this quote from one of Randi's Commentaries is pretty good:

http://www.randi.org/jr/080505potential.html


I must observe that about 40% of my acquaintances consider themselves to be religious. I don’t often argue the matter with them, but I’m admittedly impatient with them when they try to get me to accept their philosophy merely because it’s easier, or because I can’t prove it to be wrong. We agree to disagree on that subject, but these friends offer me the same delight and satisfaction that I receive from my atheist friends. I mean that, sincerely.

I do not, and I will not, allow my serious atheistic beliefs to interfere with the operation of the JREF. My rationality and my sincerity will not allow me that conceit. The JREF embraces persons of many different varieties of philosophy; there are even two Buddhists among us, though I doubt any Holy Rollers have joined our ranks. We don’t ever ask about religious preferences, because we recognize that all persons have value in the overall picture of our population.

Most definitely, however, I will not change nor soften my statement that I am a concerned, forthright, declared, atheist. I'll never waffle in this respect, and I trust that those who read and/or hear my words will accept and believe that my personal convictions do not alter my dedication to reason, fairness, tolerance, and logic.

[bignickel]

Then since Randi hasn't been able to express any thoughts on the matter, the thread never should have been started in the first place.

Politician.

It was started because I wasn't sure if Randi misunderstood the question. Then someone could post and say 'it is you who has misunderstood, and here's why...'

Or someone could post 'Actually, Randi does have a great deal to say on this, and will once he recovers'.

Which someone actually did. So the purpose of this thread has been successful, for me at least.

You can all keep discussing Randi's thoughts, if you like.

[Moochie]

I think Pyrrho's quote above says it all.

M.

[woodguard]

Randi once stated on one of the radio shows here, before is was canceled.

That a believer was OK as long as they know they BELIEVE without proof.
But if you say GOD exists then your need to show your PROOF.

Personally, I always view atheists the same way.

That a believe that God does not exists was OK as long as they know, they BELIEVE without proof.

But if you say GOD does not exists, then your need to show your PROOF.
Can any Atheist name one science paper or study that started out to disprove something and was accept ? Or did they only prove, their method did not work.

[CFLarsen]

That a believer was OK as long as they know they BELIEVE without proof.
But if you say GOD exists then your need to show your PROOF.

Nailed.

[T'ai Chi]

Personally, I always view atheists the same way.

That a believe that God does not exists was OK as long as they know, they BELIEVE without proof.

But if you say GOD does not exists, then your need to show your PROOF.


Nailed.

[CFLarsen]

Nailed.
Really?

How does one prove that God does not exist?

[T'ai Chi]

Really?


Yes. Really. Nailed. Really. Yes.


How does one prove that God does not exist?

Since I didn't claim that one can prove that God does not exist, why don't you answer your question (that never had anything to do with me).

Thank you.

[CFLarsen]

Since I didn't claim that one can prove that God does not exist, why don't you answer your question (that never had anything to do with me).

Hmmm...yes, you did. You did claim that one can prove that God does not exist:

But if you say GOD does not exists, then your need to show your PROOF.

To which, you said:

Nailed.

Q.E.D.

Now, please answer the question:

How does one prove that God does not exist?

[T'ai Chi]

Hmmm...yes, you did. You did claim that one can prove that God does not exist:


You have an active imagination.

You should write children's stories. If you need an Editor, please let me know.

[woodguard]

Hmmm...yes, you did. You did claim that one can prove that God does not exist:

Now, please answer the question:

How does one prove that God does not exist?


I don’t have to prove anything, only the person making the claim.
If someone claims God does not exist as a fact, they need to show their proof!!

[chracatoa]

on a related note, how does one prove that something does not exist?

[Soapy Sam]

Well, if you can't find it after looking for ten minutes, it might as well not exist, because it's too late to be of use.

This is the " I know I've got some brass screws that size somewhere in the garage, but damned if I can find them" principle.

[Pyrrho]

How Randi or any other JREF authority feels about religion, or God, does not concern me all that much. I would be dismayed if we stopped challenging beliefs. I think that people can be skeptics and still believe in God, but people should not expect that their beliefs will go unchallenged just because they claim to be skeptics or because they are paying members of the JREF or any other skeptic organization. Wearing the "skeptic" label should not provide an exemption to "Evidence, please."

When we stop questioning and challenging beliefs and opinions, including our own, we cease to be skeptics. Dogmatism in any form is not critical thinking.

[woodguard]

Creationism is rejected because it is an untestable theory.

Atheisism is an untestable theory? :eek:

I believe (because I have no proof) that the answer lays in the Brights. They don’t use negative logic, But state what is real. But have a really bad name.

I cannot be a Bright, because I have the believer gene and cannot remove the idea of some sort of God from my believe system, Even with logic. :boxedin:

[Nitedawg]

Hi all, I am a big supporter of this foundation but this is my first posting. I’m afraid it’s a long one so please be patient and read it in its entirety. I would really like your opinion on it.

I have become increasingly concerned about the direction society has taken when it comes to logic, reason, and rationality. It appears to me that we are becoming a people who are willing to believe almost anything and because of that we are losing touch with reality. Imagination is an important thing but it is also important to have a solid bedrock of reality to stand on when we are reaching for the stars.

I know I am probably preaching to the choir here ;) but I do have an important point to make.

Friends and family sometimes ask me why it bothers me so much when I see things in the popular media that I consider irrational or misleading. They see me objecting strongly to television programs and books that promote blind beliefs in things such as UFO abductions, bigfoot, etc., and they wonder what the big deal is.

It bothers me so much because I see these things are very harmful, especially in a democratic country like the United States. Here is why.

Popular culture is both a reflection of, and a sculptor of, popular belief. Our culture is filled to overflowing with a willingness to believe in anything that makes us feel good. Programs such as “In Search of” or the History Channel’s “UFO Files” pose as scientific or educational endeavors but ignore both of these ideals and go for the cheap thrill that perpetuates mythology. Polls show that most of the audience likes to believe that psychics, space aliens, and ghosts are real so let’s twist the facts and give them what they want. It is assumed that no one wants to know that JFK really could have been murdered by a lone wacko with a rifle, so conspiracy theories get hammered into our collective psyche.

Sure we may be creating a false reality for the public but what difference does that make? If you don’t want to believe it yourself then you don’t have to. Live and let live, right?

Wrong.

A great percentage of that public we are talking about, those minds we keep twisting and warping, are registered voters who affect the course of our nation, our educational policies, and more directly…our lives. We are building a popular culture which is increasingly having difficulty separating fantasy from reality.

I see organizations such as the JREF as being one of the few places that try to stand up and counter-act this overwhelming trend. We need to try to promote rational thought, healthy levels of skepticism, and critical thinking where ever and whenever we can.

We need all the help we can get in this effort and we can not afford to turn away any reasonable mind that comes our way. We may not all come to the same conclusions but we CAN all agree on the value of critical thinking that leads to those conclusions.
I don’t know this man you’ve been talking about but he seems sincere in his efforts to use his mind in a rational way. He admits that his belief in God is more emotional than rational and he is not trying to convert anyone to his beliefs on that topic. He seems to me to be someone we could count as being on our side in the battle to make a more reasonable and rational world.

As much as possible we need to be reaching out to the public, not alienating them.
We need to welcome with open arms anyone who wishes to learn how to learn.

I am afraid that sometimes in our effort to demonstrate critical thinking we present the image of being intolerant, arrogant, elitists. If we start off by attacking people’s beliefs instead of guiding them with facts and reason, I believe we will only make them defensive and lose any hope of reaching them. Logic and reason should be used to lift people up, not tear them down.

Let me give you an example that is linked directly to James Randi himself.

When I was about 13 years old I heard about Nostradamus from a friend of mine. I read some books about him and was awed by his apparent ability to see the future. Though he lived hundreds of years ago he seemed to have been able to describe the modern world in chilling detail. I was very enthusiastic about it and started sharing the book with many people I knew.

After a while I started to have doubts. I started noticing that some of his quatrains were being used as predictions of multiple events, some of which were completely different in nature and separated by hundreds of years. I started to realize how vague his predictions were and started thinking that if his predictions could mean almost anything, they really meant nothing at all. When I tried to present this argument to my friends who were believers they said I was being closed minded.

At about that time I stumbled across James Randi’s book The Mask of Nostradamus . This book helped me realize I was not the only one who thought this way. It agreed with my logic and presented more ideas that I hadn’t even considered. It helped me along my path of learning.

But if someone of James Randi’s intellect had caught me during that brief time when I was a Nostradamus fan and then had ridiculed me and torn me apart and treated me like I was stupid, who knows how far back that could have set me. I could have gotten very angry and bitter and stubborn about the issue. It could have closed my mind for a very long time.

Less than five percent of the population of America are atheist. If we are going to automatically shut out and ridicule everyone who believes in God we are going to throw away any opportunity we have to make a difference in the world.

[Pyrrho]

I wouldn't "shut out and ridicule everyone who believes in God"--that is certainly counterproductive and we can't expect everyone to share the same point of view. On the other hand, I think it would be an error to represent the JREF as an organization where religious people would not have their religious beliefs challenged. People who are not comfortable with having their beliefs and opinions questioned will not be comfortable here, simply because it is in the nature of skepticism and critical thinking to question the status quo and to ask for evidence. A person should not expect to come here, state that they believe in God, and have an expectation that nobody will ask them why. Likewise, an atheist should have no expectation that nobody here will ask them why.

However, the JREF, as I understand it, is not in the specific business of challenging or questioning religious beliefs. It is in the business of challenging and questioning claims of psychic and/or paranormal powers.

The statement, "I believe in God," is not a paranormal claim. Religion enters the picture because many alleged psychics claim that their "gifts" come from God and often directly relate their paranormal claims to religious beliefs. There is a lot of enmeshment.

So, no, we shouldn't close the door to religious people or people who believe in God. We should not, however, cease to challenge their beliefs, keeping in mind that challenging a belief is not the same as ridiculing a belief, which is just plain mean and has no place in rational discourse.

[Nitedawg]

Thank you Pyrrho, I agree with everything you said.

There is no need for discussion to devolve into name calling or personal ridicule. It should always be the argument we attack, not the person. When we do that we can part as friend's and possibly future allies.

The only time I care about someone's religion is when they shove it in my face and insist I believe in it. If they do that I hope they understand that they have invited an argument. But hey, a respectful argument should always lead to some kind of learning anyway, right?

[Nitedawg]

Sorry all. I wrote that long message on word and posted it without looking to see where the discussion had gone while I was away from the web site.

After looking back over the discussions before I posted my message I find that everything I said had already be stated and every question I had asked had already been answered.

[Moochie]

I feel about people who believe in a god as I do about children who believe in fairies. It's quaint, even sometimes sweet. But somewhere along the line I would think such people might come to see these things differently.

So, as Pyrrho said so eloquently, "...no, we shouldn't close the door to religious people or people who believe in God. We should not, however, cease to challenge their beliefs, keeping in mind that challenging a belief is not the same as ridiculing a belief, which is just plain mean and has no place in rational discourse."

M.

[CFLarsen]

You have an active imagination.

You should write children's stories. If you need an Editor, please let me know.

How does one prove that God does not exist?

[TheChadd]

I think it's great that Randi actually speaks his mind and doesn't pussyfoot around to appease others or to gain more numbers for his foundation. I think a skeptic should be able to have a belief in God, as long as they accept it's irrational.

[CFLarsen]

I think it's great that Randi actually speaks his mind and doesn't pussyfoot around to appease others or to gain more numbers for his foundation. I think a skeptic should be able to have a belief in God, as long as they accept it's irrational.
As long as they accept that they don't have any evidence.

Evidence, baby.

[T'ai Chi]

I think a skeptic should be able to have a belief in God, as long as they accept it's irrational.

In many cases it is not irrational at all, but rational.

[CFLarsen]

In many cases it is not irrational at all, but rational.
Please explain how a belief in God can be rational.

[CFLarsen]

Bumped for T'ai Chi.

[CFLarsen]

And this one is also not answered:

How does one prove that God does not exist?

[Igopogo]

My opinion is one needs to differentiate between a philosophical belief in God and a religious one. Religiousness is an impediment to critical thinking, where as I have found philosophy being very useful in assisting with it. Religious thinking isn’t limited to deity believers, but can be found in every area of endeavor - nationalism, politics, science, and even skepticism.

One of the ear-marks of religious thinking is putting myth before reality. Mythology is a clearly human trait that may not occur in any other life form. It may have evolved in us to be an aid in helping us survive & thrive as a species. Possibly it’s a necessary compliment to abstract thought - giving life and actions meanings when there is none. Mythological attributes given to God by many religions over time has fogged up the philosophical idea of God for many. It takes work to realize there's a non-religious concept of God out there too. On the other hand, I think that there's too much mythologizing in science too, (or the Olympics, or Hollywood, or stamp-collecting...). We have to wade through it to try to figure out what's real. Recognizing reality seems to go against an aspect of our own nature that we appear to have by various degrees. Most of us, if not all of us have our visions of reality clouded by our natures.

[dwhubbard]

This is my first post.

I've often heard in the religion debate that one can't prove a "negative". Such a claim was at least alluded to earlier in this blog when someone asked "how do you prove something doesnt exist?".

"You can't prove a negative" is not actually a formally defined rule of any kind. Every statement has a "negative". In fact, if X is the negation of Y, then Y is the negative of X. Each is the "negative" of the other. There is no formally defined class of all statements where you say "these statements are all positive" and "these other statements are all negative". It's like saying "you can't prove the opposite of a claim".

Someone might, however, insist that "negative" means "a categorical claim of the non-existance of some thing (member of a set)", as this seems to be the de facto use of the term when someone is being challenged to "prove there is no X". Again, this is not actually how the term "negative" is used in formal logic, but let's examine that use of the term for a moment.

First, the statement seems to contradict itself. Would you consider the claim "There is no example of a proof of a negative" itself an example of the negative as defined in the paragraph above? If "You can't prove a negative" is itself a "negative", then it can't be proven and you can't know that claim to be true.

Second, categorical claims of the non-existance of a thing are routinely proven in both math and the empirical sciences. Astrophysicists can prove, for example, that there simply are no neutron stars more than 100 times as massive as our sun. They know this because they can prove that such a star would have collapsed into a blackhole long before it got that massive. Regarding math, Goedel's Theorem famously proves what some would all a "negative" - ie. there is no formal system where there are no unprovable but true claims (paraphrasing). Liikewise, one can prove "There is no last digit to pi" even though pi has not been computed to infinite places.

Regarding religion, I simply put claims about a god into the same category as claims about any mythical creature. It is true that in one sense I can't absolutely disprove them. But there are a vast (if not infinite) number of claims that are unprovable one way or the other. This does not mean that I should take a stance of certainty of their falsehood or truth, just that the entire set lies outside of anything we can claim to know. Most religious people might say they "don't believe in leprachauns" really for the same reason I don't believe in a god. They are mythical figures that are not testable. I put leprachauns and fairies in equal stature with a god. This is not a specific claim about whether they exist. But it is an interesting problem for those who insist that we must differentiate among these claims - that is, that god-claims have a different status, for some reason, than leprachaun claims. I've never seen anyone address this challenge coherently.

Doug Hubbard

[BlitzerInTheSun]

I'm very thankful for this thread, for all of the links especially. I'm also very glad to have found all of this so early in my experience of this forum.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

Please explain how a belief in God can be rational.

How does one prove that God does not exist?