What drives people to not be skeptical about their beliefs?

[Pauliesonne]

This question's been bugging me so I'd appreciate an answer.

[Upchurch]

Being skeptical requires effort, perhaps. Or maybe they've never been taught to or how to think critically.

[Marquis de Carabas]

No-one needs be driven to be non-skeptical about their own beliefs. You'd do better asking what drives one to skepticism.

[MWare]

I think MdeC raises an interesting point. Is there a default human position regarding skepticism? Is a human (any human) predisposed to be skeptical, non-skeptical, or is there no predisposition? Is there any way to determine this? Is there some yardstick by which skepticism can objectively be measured, or is it all relative?

If I was forced to choose without anything to go on but my own anecdotal experience, I would say that I am more skeptical than most people I come in contact with on a daily basis. Additionally, I would say that most people are general not very skeptical. By this I mean that any given person I come in contact with on a daily basis would be inclined to believe something (anything) I say to them in the absence of any contrary evidence. I assure you it is not because I look like a particularly honest person in any way.

I am not convinced I am right about this though and I hope to hear from people who disagree.

[Freethinker]

Additionally, I would say that most people are general not very skeptical.

Which is proven by the fact that people still give their bank account numbers to people who email them from Nigeria.

[bruto]

Setting aside the arrogance of skeptics who cry "you fool" at everyone who believes something they don't, true skepticism involves uncertainty and a certain level of discomfort. We're taught by our schools, churches, parents and governments to value easy answers more than hard questions. Most people would rather relax with answers than struggle with questions.

[Marquis de Carabas]

From my own experiences with humanity, it seems to me we are predisposed to a very limited amount of skepticism. Where our beliefs aren't in obvious conflict with observed reality (or other beliefs) on a cursory examination, they just get accepted. Searching deeper than first impressions seems to be an acquired characteristic.

[SirPhilip]

This question's been bugging me so I'd appreciate an answer. As I see it, the respective process is quite simple:

Stage 1: Trust relationship. People believe someone on faith because
they believe the other person, or people, care about them or humanity
in general.

Stage 2: Suspension of disbelief. This is stacked on top of the primary
reason, and is used as a lens to filter out "good" and "bad" influences.

These two things, by themselves, are not stupidity, but a bastardization of the master and student relationship, which can be a beautiful thing. I don't blame the people really, because almost always the culprits are clinical psychopaths.

[jwr4a]

This question's been bugging me so I'd appreciate an answer.

Dopamine!

I'm not allowed to post URLs yet but go to

www <dot> newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2589


I'm sure there's a lot more to the story than this, but it's an interesting find, at any rate.

--
jwr

[uruk]

Lazyness, ego, wishfull thinking, psychosis, coersion (peer pressure), A little dull in the head lights, bribery. Did I leave anything out?












MWare, Cool avatar! Is there a bigger version I can pilfer?

[GregC]

Being skeptical requires effort, perhaps. Or maybe they've never been taught to or how to think critically.

I tend to agree that skepticism does require training and an effort. Every now and then I scan the personal profiles of the people posting. For the most part those who have chosen to list their occupations list jobs in the sciences, engineering, mathmatics, computers, etc. These are all feilds that require a good degree of critical thinking and reason.

[MWare]

Every now and then I scan the personal profiles of the people posting. For the most part those who have chosen to list their occupations list jobs in the sciences, engineering, mathmatics, computers, etc. These are all feilds that require a good degree of critical thinking and reason.

You should be more skeptical of people's profiles...

;)

[slingblade]

This thread brought up a lot of questions as I read.

How necessary to human survival is trust in information?
Is it vital that we be able to trust what we hear or see or learn?

I'd say there are limited situations in which trust is vital to immediate survival.
I'm not sure, however, if long-term survival depends more or less on trust than does immediate survival.

We're also, as a species, information hounds. We produce it and consume it at vast rates. Little of it, however, is necessary to our survival, either immediate or long-term. It is possible to live, after all, without seeing a thousand advertisements per day, to name just one source.

One can argue that, as children, it is definitely necessary to our survival to be accepting of information, especially in the first 6 to 8 years, as well as at certain intervals in our continuing development (like when we become able to reproduce--lots of info needed then).

Perhaps the problem is that many people never really grow out of that childhood "info-accepting" mode. Maybe we can't grow, or mature, out of it, but must instead be educated out of it? Perhaps human culture/society/lifestyle has changed so much that we have forgotten our responsibility to educate our young out of the info-accepting phase, or don't have time to do it, or both?

I dunno. I'm just thinking out loud in print.

[GregC]

I got to admit, it's not a study under the strictest conditions.:D

[AnotherSillyAlias]

How closely is skeptical thinking related to intelligence?

Are really bright people likely to be more skeptical than those of modest intellect?

If you tend to think skeptically, do you apply it to everything or are there occasions when you don't tend to apply it?

[GregC]

How closely is skeptical thinking related to intelligence?

I think they are related.

Are really bright people likely to be more skeptical than those of modest intellect?

I think so. I belive that as intelligence rises people are more likely to question. As it drops so does the capacity to skepticly challenge. I'm not saying I think that those of modest intellect can not skeptically challenge, I just feel as intelligence rises so does the predisposition to critcally think.

If you tend to think skeptically, do you apply it to everything or are there occasions when you don't tend to apply it?

No. I tend to believe that the food on my plate is chicken if the menu says it's chicken.

G

[SirPhilip]

"How necessary to human survival is trust in information?
Is it vital that we be able to trust what we hear or see or learn?"

With mundame information, of course not (does this new supplement do anything, etc). An example of a trust relationship would be in the context of an olympic trainer who doesn't disclose his regimen, or Tibetan buddhism. The student is completely on his own, and only progresses by having trust in his teachers. Since he looks up to the senior people of the tradition and wants their qualities, he relies on their judgement instead of his own until he can see for himself. All real learning carries some degree of this, ultimately you are teaching people how to be like you.

[Pauliesonne]

Are really bright people likely to be more skeptical than those of modest intellect?



I do " suffer " from aspergers syndrome so I guess that counts me in!

[elliotfc]

Would this include being skeptical about one's own skeptism?

I'm aware that some, or many, skeptics insist that they don't possess any beliefs, so they would consider themselves to be outside of this query (even though that itself would be a belief).

As a religious believer, I am ever eager to encounter or be challenged when it comes to my faith, but I do admit that I am content with the state of my belief system. So I don't know if "drives" applies to me...or maybe even to a good number of other religious. Resonance happens, followed by contentment, that seems like something that could apply to many religious I think.

-Elliot

[Tricky]

Would this include being skeptical about one's own skepticism?
Certainly it includes being skeptical about your conclusions, even if they were arrived at by skepticism.

I'm aware that some, or many, skeptics insist that they don't possess any beliefs, so they would consider themselves to be outside of this query (even though that itself would be a belief).
You're opening up the worm can labeled "semantics" again. I have many beliefs. Most are based on evidence. Some are not. What skeptics don't have much of is "faith", which I define as "belief without evidence". But you may catch me saying I don't have any beliefs in a casual discussion where it is given that beliefs mean "religious beliefs", so keep the context in mind when you hear a skeptic saying they don't have any.

As a religious believer, I am ever eager to encounter or be challenged when it comes to my faith, but I do admit that I am content with the state of my belief system. So I don't know if "drives" applies to me...or maybe even to a good number of other religious.
I would guess that you may be contented overall with your beliefs, but you may tweak them if you are "challenged" with a situation you had not previously considered. I think we all do that. But really, we are all skeptical about some things. For example, if another Christian came to you with an interpretation of the Bible which ran completely counter to your beliefs, wouldn't you be skeptical of his interpretation?

But it is easy to be skeptical of the beliefs of others. The hardest thing to do is to be skeptical of your own beliefs, especially if you have become "contented" in them. One thing I love about these boards is that it forces me to reevaluate my own beliefs. As a result, my beliefs have changed (usually in subtle ways) many many times since I joined these boards five years ago. It is something that I take pride in. I cannot fathom those who take pride in their unwillingness to listen with an open mind to other points of view. (No, I'm not talking about you Elliot, but more like those people who have the "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." bumper stickers.)

Resonance happens, followed by contentment, that seems like something that could apply to many religious I think.
I think most of us are aware of the thrill we get when something "resonates" with us. (I call it "the aha moment".) And when that happens, the natural urge is to want to share it with others. Here is where we court danger. You can't always give your "aha" to someone else. Of course, you can set up the circumstances to make people more likely to have an "aha moment", such as at revivals. We know enough about psychology to be able to manipulate people under certain situations.

But the danger in "aha moments" is that you still could be wrong, yet you are not willing to give up the contentment you have found from finding something that "resonates" with you. We become stubborn and intractable. It is this tendency that skeptics try to avoid, sometimes with more success than others. But I believe (there's that word again) it is a worthwhile goal.

[elliotfc]

Certainly it includes being skeptical about your conclusions, even if they were arrived at by skepticism.

Greetings Spoon!man.

Yes, what you said...but I was thinking more along the lines of being skeptical about...being skeptical. I think there are *whys* and *needs* that drive skepticism, be it the skepticism of self-professed skeptics, or the skepticisms of religious believers (more on that later, this is a revision of my original response which went on and on and on and on and on and on...)

You're opening up the worm can labeled "semantics" again. I have many beliefs. Most are based on evidence. Some are not. What skeptics don't have much of is "faith", which I define as "belief without evidence". But you may catch me saying I don't have any beliefs in a casual discussion where it is given that beliefs mean "religious beliefs", so keep the context in mind when you hear a skeptic saying they don't have any.

Right, and I think we've gone through several iterations of it. So it's my turn to say "well, pffft, I actually do have evidence of my beliefs, they are called the gospels and if you reject that evidence that's on you it's still evidence" and then I would point "well, even though I can't touch His hands and side, you can't touch the mythological original abiogenetic lifeform that got this all started and even though I can't define the mechanism of Christ's resurrection, you can't define the mechanism of abiogenesis". And then I would accuse you of being driven by some bizarre need to differentiate between "kinds" of belief to such an extent that belief becomes a bad word that is only to be associated with the people who don't think like yourself, and this would say more about your own ubermenschian hang-ups then anything else. Wow that came out pretty rough, it was a lot nicer the first draft. But that's usually how the tit-for-tat goes I think.

I would guess that you may be contented overall with your beliefs, but you may tweak them if you are "challenged" with a situation you had not previously considered.

Heck yeah, I can't number the times I've tweaked my beliefs...usually it's putting a cork in a particular pet theory with which I'm a bit too attached.

But it is easy to be skeptical of the beliefs of others. The hardest thing to do is to be skeptical of your own beliefs, especially if you have become "contented" in them. One thing I love about these boards is that it forces me to reevaluate my own beliefs. As a result, my beliefs have changed (usually in subtle ways) many many times since I joined these boards five years ago. It is something that I take pride in. I cannot fathom those who take pride in their unwillingness to listen with an open mind to other points of view. (No, I'm not talking about you Elliot, but more like those people who have the "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." bumper stickers.)

Let's give this a go...maybe I can get you to be skeptical about your beliefs in this sort of Christian. See, they actually have enough of an open mind to put the bumper sticker on their car, knowing that most people disagree with their opinion. That they announce their faith with such assurance ("blessed assurance" they'd probably call it) is the same sort of confidence as someone who takes the Fish, spells it Darwin, and puts legs on it. I think these sort of people are easy to fathom because they can be found in all philosophies and all perspectives. And I think it's easy to fathom that a person can get sick of the back and forth and compromising and just settle on something and the heck with everybody else.

See, we actually *need* to fathom all sorts of ways of thinking. Take the Indians and Europeans. Neither could fathom the other's idea of land. Yeah, we joke about the Indians "selling" an island for a dog or a song, but they didn't think it was possible to sell land. And the other way around. The Europeans couldn't fathom that the Indians didn't now about contracts and private property and immutable transactions.

Anyhow. Such Christians are skeptical about any number of things. Just not certain things in particular. The analogy I'd make between them and you is that they're not skeptical about religious beliefs, and you're not skeptical about your own skepticism in their own particular religious beliefs. Yours is contingent and directed at everyone around you. Theirs is a relinquishment and a capitulation not directed at other people, or even concerned with other people. They'd consider themselves to be liberated from your particular enslavement. Sorry to sound so negative about this. It's actually easy to fathom though, and I'm not that kind of Christian. Granted, it's a way of thinking that you probably think yourself incapable of...

...but if so...that's self-limiting, and you only have yourself to blame for that. Meaning...we can imagine a situation where even the most adamant dogmatic loses the faith. No need to imagine. Personal mishaps and tragedies or even books can and have shaken the strongest faiths. I maintain that the most ardent believer *can* become the most ardent skeptic. Now, can the most ardent skeptic become the most ardent believer? Yes, of course, it's also happened before and will happen again (less frequently of course because the population of ardent skeptics is smaller than the population of ardent believers). So it's a bit curious to me when people say they can't fathom another way of thinking because human experience shows that you can move from one population to another. So it should be easy to fathom.

I think most of us are aware of the thrill we get when something "resonates" with us. (I call it "the aha moment".) And when that happens, the natural urge is to want to share it with others.

Yes I love epiphany stories no matter the species.

Here is where we court danger. You can't always give your "aha" to someone else. Of course, you can set up the circumstances to make people more likely to have an "aha moment", such as at revivals. We know enough about psychology to be able to manipulate people under certain situations.

But the danger in "aha moments" is that you still could be wrong, yet you are not willing to give up the contentment you have found from finding something that "resonates" with you. We become stubborn and intractable. It is this tendency that skeptics try to avoid, sometimes with more success than others. But I believe (there's that word again) it is a worthwhile goal.

It's interesting that you used the word danger...I made a big deal about that in my first go at typing this, but I'll leave it at that on attempt #2.

Church revivals (I think retreats are more numerous these days) fuel the need of the believer to energize their faith. I can whip up arguments pro and con to this, I think you lean more towards the con. Good can come out of it, I'd insist. It's a subjective call. The believer would declare that good comes out of it, you'd be skeptical about that, but who are you to say what is "good" for another person? Or, you'd encourage them to be skeptical about what they get out of such a thing. But they'd probably shrug their shoulders, maybe.

I'm an advocate for a tempered, moderate skepticism, knowing full well that most people don't want to kick themselves in the head about every belief under the sun (and yes, I'm using the general definition of belief/believe and not the belief=religion=bad nouveau understanding). Stubborn and intractable may be the furthest thing from it. It may be a calm and blissful (some would say ignorant) acceptance. The believer could live and die and be content; such a believer could be declared stubborn and intractable to what end? To help another person to better fathom why they would live their life as they did? Is anyone who doesn't think like me stubborn and intractable? Isn't that a stubborn and intractable way of thinking?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I belive that as intelligence rises people are more likely to question. As it drops so does the capacity to skepticly challenge. I'm not saying I think that those of modest intellect can not skeptically challenge, I just feel as intelligence rises so does the predisposition to critcally think.

See, this is the Ubermenschian approach/sentiment.

The religious believer is not skeptical about their own religious belief. It takes intelligence to be skeptical about religious belief. Therefore, the skeptic is ("more likely to be", that would be your caveat) more intelligent than the religious believer.

It's a way to define the other to have you come out as superior. Is it more than that? I don't know. Can you be skeptical about the way in which you've thought this through?

INVARIABLY this is the association that ends up being made in this sort of thread. And I think that even a religious believer could figure that out.

-Elliot

[Tricky]

Greetings Spoon!man.
And to you sir.

Yes, what you said...but I was thinking more along the lines of being skeptical about...being skeptical. I think there are *whys* and *needs* that drive skepticism, be it the skepticism of self-professed skeptics, or the skepticisms of religious believers (more on that later, this is a revision of my original response which went on and on and on and on and on and on...) I am probably misunderstanding something you are saying. Skepticism isn't in itself a belief, it is an attitude towards knowledge. Yeah, I know we can go into "skeptics believe that they should take that attitude" and round and round we go. But I will agree that there are times when skepticism is not the best attitude to take. I do not use it when my wife tells me she loves me, for example. I don't need evidence for that, but for most things, I do.


Right, and I think we've gone through several iterations of it. So it's my turn to say "well, pffft, I actually do have evidence of my beliefs, they are called the gospels and if you reject that evidence that's on you it's still evidence"... And here we wander into semantics again. It isn't evidence that would be accepted in any scientific inquiry. Heresay evidence is sometimes admitted in law, but given less credence than verifiable evidence.

...and then I would point "well, even though I can't touch His hands and side, you can't touch the mythological original abiogenetic lifeform that got this all started and even though I can't define the mechanism of Christ's resurrection, you can't define the mechanism of abiogenesis". Yeah, but the mechanism of abiogenesis is not central to my belief system. As an intellectual excercise, it is interesting, but since we are obviously here, the precise mechanism is not that important to me. It is one of the many many things that I currently believe, based on evidence, but honestly, I don't think about it a lot. I seriously doubt that you would put Christ's resurrection in the "probably true, but not that important" category.

. And then I would accuse you of being driven by some bizarre need to differentiate between "kinds" of belief to such an extent that belief becomes a bad word that is only to be associated with the people who don't think like yourself, and this would say more about your own ubermenschian hang-ups then anything else. Wow that came out pretty rough, it was a lot nicer the first draft. But that's usually how the tit-for-tat goes I think.
LOL. What happened to that first draft anyway? Swallowed by the black hole in the internet? But it is interesting that you should mention this, because a few years ago I created the outline for a "heirarchy of beliefs". It separated beliefs into pure faith, somewhat supported, strongly supported, and really a lot of other stuff. I put a lot of time into it, but I can't find it now. It didn't get much of a reaction here, much to my disappointment.

Heck yeah, I can't number the times I've tweaked my beliefs...usually it's putting a cork in a particular pet theory with which I'm a bit too attached.
But overall, you’re comfortable in them. I suppose I could say something similar about my beliefs, but I actually look forward to tweaking them. I come here for that express purpose. But it has been a long time since any major epiphany for me.


Let's give this a go...maybe I can get you to be skeptical about your beliefs in this sort of Christian. See, they actually have enough of an open mind to put the bumper sticker on their car, knowing that most people disagree with their opinion.
That is not what I would call an open mind. It might be called “willingness to go against the grain”, but even then, it is not far enough out of the mainstream to really be called that.

That they announce their faith with such assurance ("blessed assurance" they'd probably call it) is the same sort of confidence as someone who takes the Fish, spells it Darwin, and puts legs on it.
The Darwin fish is a satire of the Christian fish. I thought it was funny, so I put one on my car. Then my car got vandalized in the parking lot where I lived and the Darwin fish was ripped off. Since then, I don’t put any “messages” on my car.

I think these sort of people are easy to fathom because they can be found in all philosophies and all perspectives. And I think it's easy to fathom that a person can get sick of the back and forth and compromising and just settle on something and the heck with everybody else.
Certainly that happens, especially as one grows older. But I don’t regard it as a good thing. Also, you needn’t “compromise” to have a polite discussion. You just need to stay polite. I hope I never get to the point where I say “the heck with everybody else.”


See, we actually *need* to fathom all sorts of ways of thinking. Take the Indians and Europeans. Neither could fathom the other's idea of land. Yeah, we joke about the Indians "selling" an island for a dog or a song, but they didn't think it was possible to sell land. And the other way around. The Europeans couldn't fathom that the Indians didn't now about contracts and private property and immutable transactions.

I agree. But it is possible to fathom another person’s thinking without agreeing with it. The situation with Muslim extremists is a good example. Even if we cannot agree with them, it is very very important to understand them.


Anyhow. Such Christians are skeptical about any number of things. Just not certain things in particular. The analogy I'd make between them and you is that they're not skeptical about religious beliefs, and you're not skeptical about your own skepticism in their own particular religious beliefs.
I agree that everybody is skeptical about certain things but not about others, but I strongly disagree that I am not skeptical about my own skeptical beliefs. I try to listen to and evaluate what people say. But really, I’ve heard the Christian message all my life. It is not necessary to re-evaluate it every time I hear it. If a Christian brings new info, ideas or evidence to the table, I’ll listen more closely, but I have to say in all honesty, very few ever do so. And to be fair, you’ve probably heard the same critiques of religion over and over again, so you don’t need to ponder them each time anew.

Yours is contingent and directed at everyone around you. Theirs is a relinquishment and a capitulation not directed at other people, or even concerned with other people. I must be misunderstanding you, because I have never seen anybody direct their beliefs at others like Christians. Never once have I had a skeptic ask me if I had been “unsaved”. Certainly you are not saying that Christians don’t proselytize.

They'd consider themselves to be liberated from your particular enslavement. Sorry to sound so negative about this. It's actually easy to fathom though, and I'm not that kind of Christian. Granted, it's a way of thinking that you probably think yourself incapable of... I can see that you’re not that kind of Christian, which is why we are able to have such a pleasant conversation. But no, I don’t think myself incapable of that kind of thought. I am regularly surprised when I discover another of my unrecognized assumptions.


...but if so...that's self-limiting, and you only have yourself to blame for that. Meaning...we can imagine a situation where even the most adamant dogmatic loses the faith. No need to imagine. Personal mishaps and tragedies or even books can and have shaken the strongest faiths. I maintain that the most ardent believer *can* become the most ardent skeptic. Now, can the most ardent skeptic become the most ardent believer? Yes, of course, it's also happened before and will happen again (less frequently of course because the population of ardent skeptics is smaller than the population of ardent believers). So it's a bit curious to me when people say they can't fathom another way of thinking because human experience shows that you can move from one population to another. So it should be easy to fathom.
Yes, that is odd that we see such things. I think it has with a basic personality type. Some people have a strong need to take a position and defend it. They don’t like, as you said, continually compromising. Frankly, I have difficulty that personality type even when I agree with their (current) position. I don’t believe in absolutes. Everything is subject to review. It is my opinion (and nothing more) that the tenaciously opinionated people tend to cluster more in the camp of religion rather than skepticism.


Yes I love epiphany stories no matter the species.
You should read the How did you convert to atheism (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=28196) thread.




It's interesting that you used the word danger...I made a big deal about that in my first go at typing this, but I'll leave it at that on attempt #2.
Yeah, I thought about that word myself. I was worried it might be misinterpreted as “physical threat” or something, but what I meant was the danger that I might offend or scare my friends with my weird epiphanies.


Church revivals (I think retreats are more numerous these days) fuel the need of the believer to energize their faith. I can whip up arguments pro and con to this, I think you lean more towards the con. Good can come out of it, I'd insist. It's a subjective call. The believer would declare that good comes out of it, you'd be skeptical about that, but who are you to say what is "good" for another person? Or, you'd encourage them to be skeptical about what they get out of such a thing. But they'd probably shrug their shoulders, maybe.

I was “saved” at a tent revival when I was about 15. It lasted almost a week. But I believe some good came out of it, just as some good came out of my summer “job” of selling encyclopedias. I won’t be fooled by evangelists or salesmen again. But yeah, a great party is always a moving experience.

But still, I think it is human nature for us to try to show others what is “good” for others, based on what we found to be good. I believe that missionaries have this as their principal responsibility.


I'm an advocate for a tempered, moderate skepticism, knowing full well that most people don't want to kick themselves in the head about every belief under the sun (and yes, I'm using the general definition of belief/believe and not the belief=religion=bad nouveau understanding). Stubborn and intractable may be the furthest thing from it. It may be a calm and blissful (some would say ignorant) acceptance. The believer could live and die and be content; such a believer could be declared stubborn and intractable to what end? To help another person to better fathom why they would live their life as they did? Is anyone who doesn't think like me stubborn and intractable? Isn't that a stubborn and intractable way of thinking?

If such a life suits one, then I wish them all happiness. But the moment when they display their beliefs to the public forum, then they are offering them up for dissection. If you don’t want to have to defend your beliefs, then you shouldn’t discuss your beliefs. Personally, I love discussing my beliefs and I believe I can defend them. I don’t get upset if someone doesn’t agree. I will get upset if they resort to insults not related to those beliefs, although I am more likely to simply return the barb, hopefully in a funny way. But of course, there are skeptics who are not so laissez faire as I. You seem to be able to deal with them too.

[SirPhilip]

As a religious believer, I am ever eager to encounter or be challenged when it comes to my faith. This is a loaded statement. Why?

1) Challenging faith is an oxymoron of sorts. You have faith because you don't really know for sure, but follow your heart.

2) The supernatural and natural world are two seperate subjects. If you have faith in something, keep it dignified, keep it real (sic).

"Resonance happens, followed by contentment, that seems like something that could apply to many religious I think. The only thing that seems to apply to many religious is that "contentment" comes from self-deceit, and believing silly things about how the world works, instead of from knowing God alone.

[steve s]

Being skeptical requires effort, perhaps. Or maybe they've never been taught to or how to think critically.

One of the things that really annoys me about purveyors of woo is that they'll often dismiss skeptics by saying, "Being skeptical is easy." No, being a mindless, gullible sheep is easy.

As for Christian Fundies, the one's I've encountered usually see themselves as being skeptical of evolution, while we are the gullible ones who blindly accept what the godless scientists are feeding us.

Steve S.

[Dcdrac]

Evidence or lack of it

[Tricky]

But it is interesting that you should mention this, because a few years ago I created the outline for a "hierarchy of beliefs". It separated beliefs into pure faith, somewhat supported, strongly supported, and really a lot of other stuff.
I found a rough draft. Seems like it was bigger, but here's what I had written:
***
Tricky’s hierarchy of belief

I) Beliefs based on empiracle evidence
__1) Based on personally observed empiracle evidence
____a) Evidence is always the same (e.g. “gravity works”)
____b) Evidence is often the same (e.g. “aspirin works”)
____c) Evidence is reliable more than half the time (e.g. “clouds mean rain")

__2) Based on reliable studies
____a) Large volumes of consistant evidence (e.g. “germ theory of disease”)
____b) Smaller volumes of consistant evidence (e.g. “polio vaccine works”)
____c) Inconsistant but with predominance of evidence (e.g. “global warming”)

II) Beliefs based on moral code
__1) Unshakable moral beliefs (e.g. “murder is bad”)
__2) Conditional moral beliefs (e.g. “lying is bad, unless you are a POW being questioned")
__3) Variable moral beliefs. (e.g. “homosexuals are bad, except the ones I know and like personally”)

III) Beliefs based on faith
__1) Witnessing
____a) Personally witnessing phenomena you cannot explain but by faith
____b) Anecdotal accounts of phenomena you cannot explain but by faith
__2) Based on teachings of a person of faith that you respect.
__3) Based on a feeling that “it must be so”.

[elliotfc]

I am probably misunderstanding something you are saying. Skepticism isn't in itself a belief, it is an attitude towards knowledge.

But humans aren't default skeptics. We assume attitudes, and a belief that such an assumption is worthy fuels our attitudes. Does that make sense? Like many, if not all, skeptics, will admit or state that there was a point in time (be they 6 or 16 or 36) that they weren't skeptics. So why the change? No one is *forced* to assume an attitude (actually we may disagree on that, some people are behaviorists after all).

I agree that skepticism isn't a belief in itself, but, the human must believe in order to know how much value to place on skepticism. This can be variable. We can constrcut skeptical ammunition on any topic in existence. It is what it is. Now, do we proclaim it? Advocate it? Obsess over it? Question it? That's where belief comes in.

I'm badgering you here. Most skeptics would be emancipated from anything that smacks of belief. I vary from being amused by that to being irked by that. The belief of emancipation from belief is so deeply held that I really shouldn't get to hung up about this, yet I do. I think it says much about motivation which, at least to me, explains a lot about why people think as they do. It's sort of like how skeptics probably wonder about the motivations about believers...I'm doing that on you, which probably isn't very fair.

Yeah, I know we can go into "skeptics believe that they should take that attitude" and round and round we go. But I will agree that there are times when skepticism is not the best attitude to take. I do not use it when my wife tells me she loves me, for example. I don't need evidence for that, but for most things, I do.[/COLOR]

Forgetting you for a sec...can you imagine the need for evidence to ever be...pathological, or obsessive, or damaging to the self?

Back to the believers they would agree that evidence is necessary, and when it comes to their faith, they would point to the Bible, which is their evidence. So the question of differentiation has to do with how much skepticism should be worked on the Bible, and that can vary from maximal to minimal. From the believers perspective (like me!) I could say that there are points and ideas of which religious believers have maximal skepticism while the skeptics will have minimal skepticism. Examples could be extrapolation, mechanisms of unobservable historical evolution, aspects of human nature, importance of objective morality, etc.

And here we wander into semantics again. It isn't evidence that would be accepted in any scientific inquiry. Heresay evidence is sometimes admitted in law, but given less credence than verifiable evidence.

No, it could be accepted in scientific inquiry. Science is a methodology which deals with data. Questioning the data is a philsophical bit that needs to be sorted before the inquiry would happen...a pre-inquiry.

Now, that 99.99% of scientists would never accept the Bible as evidence will impress different people to a varying degree. The believer (like me!) would say that the questions I have which the Bible addresses could hardly be suitably handled by "legitimate* scientific inquiry, so that's fine.

So, in this case as well, you have a more particular definition for evidence and belief than do I. I consider that an application of sentiment to perfectly good words that are not inherently good or bad.


Yeah, but the mechanism of abiogenesis is not central to my belief system. As an intellectual excercise, it is interesting, but since we are obviously here, the precise mechanism is not that important to me.

Replace abiogenesis with God's creation or something to that effect...that's what I'm talking about.

It is one of the many many things that I currently believe, based on evidence, but honestly, I don't think about it a lot. I seriously doubt that you would put Christ's resurrection in the "probably true, but not that important" category.[/COLOR]

That's a good point. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth is my defense on that one. As for materialism...the starting points is what I can't get over when I judge materialism. You and I can be equally knowledgeable about how it all shakes down in the present. The past can only be mythological (another word that has no inherent good/bad value). But I've always been interested in mythology, which may be why I wonder more about the initial entities more than you (a materialist?) in fact do.

[QUOTE]LOL. What happened to that first draft anyway? Swallowed by the black hole in the internet?

It was weird...I know I logged on cuz it told me I was logged on....I typed up the reply, submitted, and then the powers that be declared that I wasn't logged on. More incoherent skeptic babble I think. And instead of clicking the back button I just had another go.

But it is interesting that you should mention this, because a few years ago I created the outline for a "heirarchy of beliefs". It separated beliefs into pure faith, somewhat supported, strongly supported, and really a lot of other stuff. I put a lot of time into it, but I can't find it now. It didn't get much of a reaction here, much to my disappointment.

Probably because you attempted to take the concept of belief seriously, and really, what good can come out of that? Like trying to sell tofu to carnivores.

But overall, you’re comfortable in them. I suppose I could say something similar about my beliefs, but I actually look forward to tweaking them. I come here for that express purpose. But it has been a long time since any major epiphany for me.

Right. I think a person should evaluate themselves if they have life-changing epiphanies with regularity. My epiphanies these days tend to be minor. It occurred to me a couple years ago that I was drinking soda for absolutely no reason...I actually used to drink Mountain Dew everyday...but I realized I didn't even like Mountain Dew. So now I mix it up...I'm really digging berry gatorade these days. But I probably drink soda once a month now (not including mixers)...and I used to drink soda twice a day. Unreal.

The Darwin fish is a satire of the Christian fish. I thought it was funny, so I put one on my car. Then my car got vandalized in the parking lot where I lived and the Darwin fish was ripped off. Since then, I don’t put any “messages” on my car.

Actually Tricky, that fact makes the Darwin fish even funnier, try to be more objective about the situation.

The Darwin fish is yet another example of lack of creativity from you guys. Come up with your own symbols. Any lazy slob can manipulate a symbol and pat himself on the back about it...really, you don't have to be all that clever to do that. The Darwin fish irks me I must admit. Why the fish? Why not the star of David or an Indian sacred symbol?

More later, gotta go eat fish now it's Friday. -Elliot

[ruach1]

This question's been bugging me so I'd appreciate an answer.
I think its personal. Everyone has their own reasons to be skeptical.

Mine are:

--abuses of power among the religious and political

--abuses of power among authority figures in my life

--plain common sense in regard to human nature

[rharbers]

This question's been bugging me so I'd appreciate an answer.

Being ignorant is blissful; and safe.

[JamesDillon]

This question's been bugging me so I'd appreciate an answer.

Skepticism requires a degree of abstration and philosophical contemplation; unquestioning belief is really the default position. The evidence of the senses seems so vivid and tangible that we naturally assume its veracity without question. If it is the case that all complex ideas can ultimately be reduced to simple sensory impressions (this may or may not be the case, but I have Hume on the brain from another thread), then it follows that our default position to all beliefs would be one of credulity. Skepticism can arise initially only in moments of philosophical introspection of the sort that many people find to be a useless waste of time.

[strathmeyer]

Being ignorant is blissful; and safe.

No it's not. Sooner or later people are just going to have to realize that most people just aren't very smart.

[elliotfc]

I agree that everybody is skeptical about certain things but not about others, but I strongly disagree that I am not skeptical about my own skeptical beliefs.

I accept that, didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I try to listen to and evaluate what people say. But really, I’ve heard the Christian message all my life. It is not necessary to re-evaluate it every time I hear it. If a Christian brings new info, ideas or evidence to the table, I’ll listen more closely, but I have to say in all honesty, very few ever do so. And to be fair, you’ve probably heard the same critiques of religion over and over again, so you don’t need to ponder them each time anew.

You're right. In fact, if something *new* was actually brought to the table, you'd probably be skeptical about that.

It does work both ways. I think I've heard about all the arguments that are out there.

I must be misunderstanding you, because I have never seen anybody direct their beliefs at others like Christians. Never once have I had a skeptic ask me if I had been “unsaved”. Certainly you are not saying that Christians don’t proselytize.

Right...can't quite remember my point, but the notion behind it was that skeptics have a more directed skepticism than religious believers. You're defined very much in relation to the majority around you.

No Christians certainly proselytize, and of course with more vigor seeing how they believe much more is at stake than would an atheist proselytizer (God knows they're out there as well). I remember what Rabbi Joseph Schiller said...he was surprised that more Christians DIDN'T proselytize, given what they claim to believe. Understanding Christian belief means that you could hardly be surprised at Christian proselytizing (why can't I remember how to spell that word oh well).

Yes, that is odd that we see such things. I think it has with a basic personality type. Some people have a strong need to take a position and defend it. They don’t like, as you said, continually compromising. Frankly, I have difficulty that personality type even when I agree with their (current) position. I don’t believe in absolutes. Everything is subject to review. It is my opinion (and nothing more) that the tenaciously opinionated people tend to cluster more in the camp of religion rather than skepticism.

You may be right...but just sheer numbers would also lead to that conclusion, because a)there are so many more religious and b)they are driven in a way that an atheist wouldn't be. Christians are commanded to spread the gospel; atheists have no such demand of themselves.

Yeah, I thought about that word myself. I was worried it might be misinterpreted as “physical threat” or something, but what I meant was the danger that I might offend or scare my friends with my weird epiphanies.

I think that all epiphanies are weird to some extent. Like, it might be weird in the "jesus, it took me 25 years to figure that out?" or "jesus, it took that little thing to get my head the right way round?" Really you're talking about what can be perceived as a moment of weakness or, a moment when you're kind of suspended and vulnerable. But just the definite significance of such events should overwhelm the details, which may be accidental or bizarre, but that also makes them cool.

But still, I think it is human nature for us to try to show others what is “good” for others, based on what we found to be good. I believe that missionaries have this as their principal responsibility.

Ideally that would be their motive force.

If such a life suits one, then I wish them all happiness. But the moment when they display their beliefs to the public forum, then they are offering them up for dissection. If you don’t want to have to defend your beliefs, then you shouldn’t discuss your beliefs.

An excellent belief that I can wholeheartedly dig! :)


-Elliot

[GregC]

See, this is the Ubermenschian approach/sentiment.

The religious believer is not skeptical about their own religious belief. It takes intelligence to be skeptical about religious belief. Therefore, the skeptic is ("more likely to be", that would be your caveat) more intelligent than the religious believer.

I agree, the religious believer cannot be skeptical about his own religious beliefs. He can question his faith, but he can't truly be skeptical about it. From my own experience and others I have spoken with, the difference between being skeptical and questioning your faith are where you begin your search for the truth. Questioning your faith begins with a belief. The questioning believer is looking for the reason to believe the article of faith. Skeptical thinking begins with an open mind or an, "is it true or is it false?" mind set.

I also agree that it takes a level of intelligence to be skeptical about religious beliefs but to carry it to say the skeptic is more intelligent than a believer is not accurate. Intelligence gives us the ability to be skeptical, it does not guarantee it. Saying the skeptic is more intelligent just because he is skeptical is like saying there's water in the wheelbarrow therefore it rained. It just might well be, but it's not for sure.

It's a way to define the other to have you come out as superior. Is it more than that? I don't know. Can you be skeptical about the way in which you've thought this through?

For right or wrong, good or bad, it is a way to claim to be superior. That kind of attitude runs on this board not only between skeptics and believers but also between skeptics. The "I'm a true skeptic and your not because you're not skeptical about being skeptical." theme has popped up more than once or twice on this forum. Isn't it just another way of feeding the ego, the need to be important to ones self? Should it be that way? I don't know. Do I think I'm better than you because I don't believe in God? No. No more than I think I'm better because I like Pink Floyd and you like the Beatles.

Skepticism apparently comes at all levels. I don't know if I can be skeptical to everyone’s definition of skeptical. To some I will be to others, no. I have no preconceived notion that I am right. I am open to discussion and would very much like to hear what others have to say. In time I might find that my opinions and thought process change.

G

[Tricky]

But humans aren't default skeptics.
Thanks for the in-depth reply, Elliot. I read it all, but I don't have time to respond right now. I'm actually in a hotel in Dallas where I'm attending the North Texas Irish Festival. (I'm a big fan of all kinds of Celtic music). I'm trying to keep a journal, so my writing skills are a bit stretched right now. But I promise I will reply at length, probably next week. Have a great weekend.

[phildonnia]

This question's been bugging me so I'd appreciate an answer.

I have an idea, but I don't know if it's right.

You need to have two beliefs, A and B, which are consistent with each other. Now to question the belief in A would set up some kind of cognitive dissonance with B, and you'd go back to A. The same thing with questioning your belief in B.

So A and B are like a set of lock-nuts, or redundant systems, and the only way truly question your beliefs effectively is to question them both at the same time.

For example, A might be "God Exists", and B might be "God punishes the doubtful".

[elliotfc]

This is a loaded statement. Why?

1) Challenging faith is an oxymoron of sorts. You have faith because you don't really know for sure, but follow your heart.

Just to be sure I get what you're saying...are you saying that faith is essentially challenged?

If that's what you're saying, it's not oxymoronical to challenge something that is essentially challenged. Let's say that something is fundamentally unstable, like a three legged chair. Is it oxymoronical to sit on it until it breaks? No. I'm helping you out here, I came up with an extreme analogy to suit your point of view regarding faith...I just don't get the oxymoron thing.


2) The supernatural and natural world are two seperate subjects. If you have faith in something, keep it dignified, keep it real (sic).

Yes, by definition of course they are separate. It is your belief that people should only have faith in *natural* things. I think people can (and do) have faith in both. If such people are wrong, oh well I guess.

The only thing that seems to apply to many religious is that "contentment" comes from self-deceit, and believing silly things about how the world works, instead of from knowing God alone.

Well seems is the crucial word, it's pretty blind of you to say that the "only" thing that seems to apply to religious is what you say. I mean surely you can come up with 39 or so different negative descriptors, don't you think? :)

Self-deceit...I dunno. Objective reality is what it is, regardless of everybody believes in it, or nobody believes in it. See, if they didn't believe in that, they'd believe in something else. And we can define that something else, and then you'll get people lining up to say that they are still self-deceivers. And I think that you're also a self-deceiver! Take that! And maybe you are, and maybe you aren't! So let's just classify the *other* as irrational, self-deceiving, illogical unreasonable silly people! Yeah! Tee hee!

Hey man, you can't believe as religious people believe. No problem. You extend that into calling them (us) silly and what not. Not...such a problem. Meaning, I'm not going to lose sleep over people thinking that I'm silly. Now, I'm a bit more concerned not for the stated judgment, but for your need to have those judgments. Because you most certainly don't need to have those judgments. And based on this, I could conclude that your belief system is founded on a personal need to think of yourself as mentally/morally/intellectually superior to the mass of humanity.

Bosh and piddle you would say. How dare anyone judge you in such a way?

Well...yeah. Exactly.

Anyhow, all religous believers are silly. So that's what you're saying. What's the next step? Do you detach yourself from thinking about the silliness, or, are you kind of stuck with it based on the situation of the world? Will informing people that they are silly help to change them, or, are you not all that concerned with whether or not silly people stay silly? Is it silly to point out to silly people that they are silly? Have you ever considered alternative ways of expressing your sentiments, or, are you content with them? Do you mean silly in a negative way? Meaning, God forbid that you're ever silly, or, considered to be silly by others, but, does it matter if other people are silly? Assuming that you're worked out the silly beliefs of the believers, would you consider it to be silly to even try (or continue to) them out?

Well, just consider all that an attempt to be skeptical about your beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, right?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

One of the things that really annoys me about purveyors of woo is that they'll often dismiss skeptics by saying, "Being skeptical is easy." No, being a mindless, gullible sheep is easy.

1. I think the whole "...is easy" argument is useless. Something may be hard, something may be easy. Is it right? Is it good?

2. Purveyors of woo, that's pretty good!

3. Is it easy to be a mindless, gullible sheep? Do you base that statement on personal experience? Are you saying that what you are, ummm, doing, or, what you are, is harder? If so, does that have any necessary value attached to it? For instance, I can go to the store buy walking to it directly, or, I can get a pogo stick and put a blindfold on. That would be pretty hard! So what? What's the point?

4. Are all religious believers mindless, gullible sheep? Or just some of them? When did you get this opinion? Does this opinion affect how you treat others? Do you share this opinion with religious believers? Do you classify all masses of individuals that you are superior to animalistically? How often do you consider the fact that you are surrounded by mindless, gullible sheep? Everytime you interact with them? When you're having a cup of coffee before work? Did this opinion come as an epiphany, or did it sink in over time? Do you use it as a sort of mantra during times of stress or confoundment?


As for Christian Fundies, the one's I've encountered usually see themselves as being skeptical of evolution, while we are the gullible ones who blindly accept what the godless scientists are feeding us.

That sounds about right. Do they also consider you to be sheeplike?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Tricky, that's a pretty good hierarchy! Now, does the hierarchy start at the top, or the bottom? :) Really, that's I guess the big problem I have with it, it's essentially loaded and pre-deterministic.

My other problem is that I don't think it's so easy to separate them into three categories. Take gravity. Gravity works. That is empirical evidence. If you can't explain that evidence, is it still empirical evidence? Would you place "gravity works" in category 1 or category 3? Was "gravity works" only category 1 relatively recently because of physics, and it was category 3 before that?

One other thing...you could have faulty beliefs within each category (yes Virigina, including beliefs based on empirical evidence).

But a nice job nonetheless! You run the risk of insulting skeptics by including religious belief *literally* on the same page as empirical evidence belief.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Being ignorant is blissful; and safe.

I never really got this one. You can be ignorant and me absolutely miserable. Plus, you can be ignorant and killed crossing the street.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Skepticism requires a degree of abstration and philosophical contemplation; unquestioning belief is really the default position.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Yet even with this, the belief is contingent. Meaning, in a world of skeptics, the unquestioning belief would be directed in a different direction.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

No it's not. Sooner or later people are just going to have to realize that most people just aren't very smart.

Going to have to realize? Why have to? Please explicate, some people aren't as smart as you.

Ummm, are you with the people who are very smart, or, aren't very smart? Oh wait a second I already answered that question!

I eagerly await a reply you ubermensch you.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Thanks for the in-depth reply, Elliot. I read it all, but I don't have time to respond right now. I'm actually in a hotel in Dallas where I'm attending the North Texas Irish Festival. (I'm a big fan of all kinds of Celtic music). I'm trying to keep a journal, so my writing skills are a bit stretched right now. But I promise I will reply at length, probably next week. Have a great weekend.

Nice one Tricky!

Here's another one...

Let's say that the whole world is populated by Christians, save for one lonely skeptic. Horror horror, but the scenario would work. All of these Christians, and then a skeptic.

Now...let's say the whole world is populated by skeptics, except for one lonely Christian. Would the scenario work? Is skepticism relative? I know that others have already said things in this thread (notably Greg) that would suggest otherwise. But can you be skeptical of skepticism? The lonely Christian no doubt would be. He would then be the only effective skeptic. The other skeptics would reinforce each other. Kind of like this board! Sort of.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I have an idea, but I don't know if it's right.

You need to have two beliefs, A and B, which are consistent with each other. Now to question the belief in A would set up some kind of cognitive dissonance with B, and you'd go back to A. The same thing with questioning your belief in B.

So A and B are like a set of lock-nuts, or redundant systems, and the only way truly question your beliefs effectively is to question them both at the same time.

For example, A might be "God Exists", and B might be "God punishes the doubtful".

*Ideally* you'd have beliefs that are consistent with each other...but I think internal illogic abounds, unfortunately. No, that doesn't make people irrational or stupid or lazy or mean or outrageous, but given the complexity of the world and the smorgasborg (what's that word?) of belief, it's almost inevitable and we have to be ever vigilant and all that.

Anyhow, you make a good point. But, enough theists have addressed A, God Exists, that clearly it can be done. And, enough theists have addressed A, and decided that God actually doesn't exist, that it clearly can be done. That doesn't mean it would be easy or common.

-Elliot

[Tricky]

You're right. In fact, if something *new* was actually brought to the table, you'd probably be skeptical about that.
Well, yeah, but just because I was skeptical doesn't mean I wouldn't evaluate it fairly. The skeptic position is not "I reject it until you prove otherwise", it is "I have no position on it until you show your evidence." But of course, having no position on an issue might appear to be rejection to a person who is of the "you are either with us or against us" mindset.

It does work both ways. I think I've heard about all the arguments that are out there.
And you still aren't an atheist? How could you be so foolish!:D

Right...can't quite remember my point, but the notion behind it was that skeptics have a more directed skepticism than religious believers. You're defined very much in relation to the majority around you.
Well, I'm glad you don't remember the point, because I'm lost too. If you're trying to say that how a person is perceived is dependant on the group that is doing the perceiving, that seems to be a truism.

No Christians certainly proselytize, and of course with more vigor seeing how they believe much more is at stake than would an atheist proselytizer (God knows they're out there as well). I remember what Rabbi Joseph Schiller said...he was surprised that more Christians DIDN'T proselytize, given what they claim to believe. Understanding Christian belief means that you could hardly be surprised at Christian proselytizing (why can't I remember how to spell that word oh well).

Again, it depends on the interpretation of the Bible that the Christian chooses. If you follow the "do not be like the hypocrite that prays in public" verse, then you probably don't proselytize as much as "spread the good word" type of Christian.

You may be right...but just sheer numbers would also lead to that conclusion, because a)there are so many more religious and b)they are driven in a way that an atheist wouldn't be. Christians are commanded to spread the gospel; atheists have no such demand of themselves.

Not all religious people are commanded to spread their word. Some specifically prohibit proselytizing. In fact, I don't know of any other religions which establish missionaries. But I may simply be ignorant of it. Yes, Buddhists have "monasteries", but if they recruit, I am not aware of it.

However, though it might appear that I am being smug here, I will continue to maintain that atheists in general are more educated (in proportion) than Christians. Most have thought long and hard about religious questions, which the rank-and-file of Christianity have not. Again, I base this on my own observations. Almost all the atheists here seem to know more about the bible than the majority of Christians I know.

I think that all epiphanies are weird to some extent. Like, it might be weird in the "Jesus, it took me 25 years to figure that out?" or "Jesus, it took that little thing to get my head the right way round?" Really you're talking about what can be perceived as a moment of weakness or, a moment when you're kind of suspended and vulnerable. But just the definite significance of such events should overwhelm the details, which may be accidental or bizarre, but that also makes them cool.

Cool? Perhaps. I might even say scary, especially if during your epiphany you decide that it is your job to do God's work. I get a little edgy any time people decide that they have the inside track on God's plan.

An excellent belief that I can wholeheartedly dig! :)
Cool. But don't get upset if we atheists "gang up" on a believer. If you volunteer for the lions den, then you'd better not rub holy blood all over yourself before you go in.

Tricky, that's a pretty good hierarchy! Now, does the hierarchy start at the top, or the bottom? :) Really, that's I guess the big problem I have with it, it's essentially loaded and pre-deterministic.
I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, it does put verifiable "beliefs" higher on the pole. I would think such a system would make sense.

My other problem is that I don't think it's so easy to separate them into three categories. Take gravity. Gravity works. That is empirical evidence. If you can't explain that evidence, is it still empirical evidence? Would you place "gravity works" in category 1 or category 3? Was "gravity works" only category 1 relatively recently because of physics, and it was category 3 before that?
No, gravity has always been category 1. Empirical evidence doesn't require an explanation (although they are very nice to have), all it requires to be in the top category is that it always works and it works the same way for everybody.

But you are right in that it is not possible to separate any given belief into one of these categories. They are just guidelines, and very rough ones at that.


One other thing...you could have faulty beliefs within each category (yes Virgina, including beliefs based on empirical evidence).
Of course you could, but it would take a lot of work. For example, if you lived with a stage magician who pulled doves from his handkerchief every day of your life, you might legitimately believe that doves lived in handkerchiefs. But you would have to see it every single time, or else it wouldn't be a category 1 belief any more. (I used to think my grandfather really was finding dimes in my ear).

So can you give me an example of a faulty belief based on reliably repeatable and objectively observable empirical data? I think you will have a hard time doing so.


But a nice job nonetheless! You run the risk of insulting skeptics by including religious belief *literally* on the same page as empirical evidence belief.
LOL. Thanks. I'll take that risk.

Let's say that the whole world is populated by Christians, save for one lonely skeptic. Horror horror, but the scenario would work. All of these Christians, and then a skeptic.

Now...let's say the whole world is populated by skeptics, except for one lonely Christian. Would the scenario work? Is skepticism relative? I know that others have already said things in this thread (notably Greg) that would suggest otherwise. But can you be skeptical of skepticism?
If we use the same definition of skepticism, then it wouldn't matter how many there were of skeptics and non-skeptics. A perfect skeptic would evaluate all information fairly. Of course, there is no such creature, but for us imperfect, biased skeptics, if you are evaluating data fairly, then you are also attempting to account for your own biases. If that is what you mean by being "skeptical of skepticism", then I would agree that such an approach is required.

The lonely Christian no doubt would be. He would then be the only effective skeptic. The other skeptics would reinforce each other. Kind of like this board! Sort of.
He might be skeptical that the skeptics were being fair, as well he should be. But in order to evaluate their fairness, he would have to somehow overcome his own biases for religion. I have found few Christians that could do this. Interestingly, they are usually the ones who have studied it in the most depth.

[elliotfc]

Well, I'm glad you don't remember the point, because I'm lost too. If you're trying to say that how a person is perceived is dependant on the group that is doing the perceiving, that seems to be a truism.

I vaguely remember it...errr...it's somewhere...

I definitely do think that skeptics are dependent on being surrounded by things to make them skeptical. Like, if there weren't so many believers around circulating ideas, you'd probably call yourself something else. Like, you can name 150 things you're skeptical about right off the bat, and probably many, or most, of those things would be topics that others weren't skeptical about. A cynic needs things to be cynical about in the same way.

It isn't how I perceive a skeptic, or how they are perceived in general, I have an idea past that. Many of the threads on this forum are "in reaction to" threads. Look at what these believers are doing...look at what they're saying on this forum...don't you hate it when people say this...that kind of stuff. It's very reactionary.

Greg put together some good points about what it is to be, or think, skeptically. He did such a good job actually that some people who wouldn't be considered skeptics would say to themselves "well, yeah, that's how I think too". The fact that they were believers would (or may) make skeptics believe otherwise probably.

Again, it depends on the interpretation of the Bible that the Christian chooses. If you follow the "do not be like the hypocrite that prays in public" verse, then you probably don't proselytize as much as "spread the good word" type of Christian.

But praying in public isn't the same as proseletyzing (God, I think I spell that word wrong everytime). If it was, surely the closest followers of Jesus wouldn't have proselytized ever, but they certainly did. The praying in public bit I think has to do with people who wear sackcloth and wail in church and beat their breasts mercilessly all the while keeping a lookout for all the people who are watching their spectacle.

Yes, Christians may have different ideas about proselytizing. Does the world have a better opinion about Christians who don't try to preach their faith to others? Heck yeah. The Bible also says that the world will reject us, so that only makes sense.

Not all religious people are commanded to spread their word. Some specifically prohibit proselytizing. In fact, I don't know of any other religions which establish missionaries. But I may simply be ignorant of it. Yes, Buddhists have "monasteries", but if they recruit, I am not aware of it.

Judaism isn't interested in converting others...Islam...it depends who you ask. I'm not certain about Eastern religions. Christianity definitely stands out in this regard.

If you're saying that Christians ought not to spread the gospel, you'd probably be correct from a secular perspective. It's cooler to have sex with sheep probably than to hand out bibles.

However, though it might appear that I am being smug here, I will continue to maintain that atheists in general are more educated (in proportion) than Christians.

No, I agree with you on this one. In fact it's pretty well established. I don't equate intelligence with education level (I'm sure you don't either). Yes, the more education you have, the more exposure you have to alternative ideas and alternative perspectives. In addition, I think there has been a continuing snowballing effect in higher education where the *ivory tower* perspective inculcates the members into thinking that they think in a more sophisticated way than non-educated believers. This could mean atheism, agnosticism, or a get-along-with-everybody brand of Christianity. In the grad courses I've taken, I definitely saw how many sorts of ideas were just intolerable, and I'm talking not about religion, I rarely ever brought that up, that would have been particularly dangerous.

Anyhow, you are right that atheists tend to have more formal educational background.

Most have thought long and hard about religious questions, which the rank-and-file of Christianity have not.

Sort of I think. I can't count the number of times (I really can't) that I've talked to atheists and have them say something like *I never though of that/considered that*, something like that. Certain questions (maybe the obvious ones)...yes, I think that atheists have thought about certain questions. As for rank-and-file Christians, I'm not sure how definite I'd peg them on this one. Short of taking a poll (and in a poll people might, I dunno, inflate their answer I guess)...I guess I could give this one to you. A response could be what's there to think long and hard about? How many issues/questions in life have we *really* thought long and hard about...and is that a reason to necessarily be skeptical about another?

Again, I base this on my own observations. Almost all the atheists here seem to know more about the bible than the majority of Christians I know.

But is that necessarily a good/bad thing? How about the Christians who are not fundamentalists, or literalists? They would not have that sort of *litmus* test. If the implication is *I found 398234 errors in the Bible, therefore Christianity is bunk*, the Christian could say to you *why are you so hung up about the Bible*? The Bible is not the same as Jesus, and Christians believe in Jesus.

Now, I do think that Christians ought to know the Bible better than they do. I also think that a person who has some *general understandings* about the Bible may know more about the Bible than the bean counters who search the Bible for contradictions and what not. In other words, someone who proves they know the Bible by quoting passages, or listing contradictions, may know less about the Bible than a person who can do neither, but has it in a different perspective.


Cool? Perhaps. I might even say scary, especially if during your epiphany you decide that it is your job to do God's work.

Yes, the potential for scary is there...but the potential for scary is there for all good things (or all things I guess), like love and nuclear science and knock knock jokes.

I get a little edgy any time people decide that they have the inside track on God's plan.

I'd be skeptical of those people too, seeing how God's plan has kind of already been revealed.

Cool. But don't get upset if we atheists "gang up" on a believer. If you volunteer for the lions den, then you'd better not rub holy blood all over yourself before you go in.

Holy water is all I need!

I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, it does put verifiable "beliefs" higher on the pole. I would think such a system would make sense.

Now it makes sense, since you've defined it that way. If you say that "verifiable beliefs ought to be higher on the pole", then you're right to have the system that way. There's a morality behind it, not that there's anything wrong with that.

No, gravity has always been category 1. Empirical evidence doesn't require an explanation (although they are very nice to have), all it requires to be in the top category is that it always works and it works the same way for everybody.

I get you now. So, even if some people in the past would have had religious explanations for gravity, that would have been beside the point. Meaning, I could have religious sentiments behind planetary motion, but that wouldn't be a religous belief, because it's already in a category. Do I have it right?

That was the thing I was wondering about...that gravity could be category 3 if people believed it was religious, or God-caused, or whatever.

Actually the more I think about it...gravity isn't a belief. Gravity is gravity. How you *view* gravity would be the belief. In that respect, a view of gravity could be in group 1, or group 3. Right?

Of course you could, but it would take a lot of work. For example, if you lived with a stage magician who pulled doves from his handkerchief every day of your life, you might legitimately believe that doves lived in handkerchiefs. But you would have to see it every single time, or else it wouldn't be a category 1 belief any more. (I used to think my grandfather really was finding dimes in my ear).

I was thinking more about the past view of meteorites. They (scientists) didn't think that rocks fell from the sky. They thought that they were always there. So like if some farmer said "I saw that there rock fall from the sky" they'd laugh at him and say "no, rocks don't fall from the sky".

So can you give me an example of a faulty belief based on reliably repeatable and objectively observable empirical data? I think you will have a hard time doing so.

Well I could give you past examples. I couldn't give you present examples until they were demonstrably proven, and then they would join the ranks of past examples. Knowing the history of science, any skeptic should understand that if science had faulty beliefs currently, that's just the way it goes, nothing to get to hung up about.

If we use the same definition of skepticism, then it wouldn't matter how many there were of skeptics and non-skeptics. A perfect skeptic would evaluate all information fairly. Of course, there is no such creature, but for us imperfect, biased skeptics, if you are evaluating data fairly, then you are also attempting to account for your own biases. If that is what you mean by being "skeptical of skepticism", then I would agree that such an approach is required.

That works. The sensible opposition then would be to question whether or not skeptics were really evaluating information fairly, without bias. The Christian could also be skeptical of skeptics who have filters that rule out possibilities. Skepticism would be a way of understanding and explaining the world then...but you could be skeptical about the way that happened in practice.

He might be skeptical that the skeptics were being fair, as well he should be. But in order to evaluate their fairness, he would have to somehow overcome his own biases for religion. I have found few Christians that could do this. Interestingly, they are usually the ones who have studied it in the most depth.

I don't know how you can judge if someone has overcome his own biases. Do you find out by asking them? Probably not. What's the litmus test? Set of questions to ask? A feeling you get? This is a bit murkier.

The believer would say that the skeptic can't overcome biases against religion, and the skeptic would say that the believer can't overcome biases for religion. Short of agreed upon, or, clearly defined ways of verifying those opinions, I don't know how much they mean.


Returning to the original question (what drives people to not be skeptical about their beliefs), I still feel comfortable in saying that this ought to apply to everyone, skeptics included, and I think you agree with me on that. I think we'd agree that some believers and some skeptics are not skeptical about their beliefs. You probably think that skeptics do a heck of a lot better job at it than believers, based on education level, demonstrable real experience in questioning and rigorously working through religious ideas, and the emphasis they place on the highest level of belief, in your hierarchy. I think that believers may not have the same needs as skeptics.

Maybe we can work on that one. A skeptic does not need to be a skeptic. Or, a skeptic does not need to wear it on his/her sleeve. A skeptic does not have to think of himself as a skeptic. Or maybe I'm wrong on those statements. Actually, replace skeptic with religious believer.

The original question on this thread pre-determines an outlook. Everybody *ought* to be skeptical about their beliefs, and what exactly could drive people otherwise? Maybe the question should be asked the other way around. If so, you'd come up with...psychology I guess. What psychological needs make people into professed skeptics? Because that is not our default position (I think we can agree about that). And nobody has to be a skeptic (I think we can agree about that too). If it's morally (that would be the word, wouldn't it?) better to be a skeptic, why is that? Is there Darwinian mechanisms at work? Is this all just sweetness and light? Does it matter if someone is a skeptic or not?

I think it's a psychological deal. Am I wrong on that?

-Elliot

[T'ai Chi]

What drives people to not be skeptical about their beliefs?

There are many possibilities. The ones that come to mind immediately are

-they don't like the implications if the reverse of what they believe is true was actually true

-they've had experiences that convince them beyond all 'debunking' attempts

-they really are being skeptical in terms of doubt, just not skeptical according to how some in the organized skeptical movement want you doubt

[elliotfc]

What drives people to not be skeptical about their beliefs?

There are many possibilities. The ones that come to mind immediately are

-they don't like the implications if the reverse of what they believe is true was actually true

-they've had experiences that convince them beyond all 'debunking' attempts

-they really are being skeptical in terms of doubt, just not skeptical according to how some in the organized skeptical movement want you doubt

These are good ones, here are some more.

-It never occurs to them to be skeptical about their beliefs.

-They see skepticism as inherently futile (when does it end? can't you be skeptical about everything? can you ever be certain about anything?)

-Comfort/contentment/satisfaction with beliefs making any thought of skepticism unpalateable.

-The attainment of a threshhold, where anymore skepticism is unacceptable (been there, done that, don't break the camel's back).

-A basic and general *uncertainty*, or, lack of conviction, in belief where skepticism would be superfluous or irrelevant.

-An inability to articulate belief, making skepticism a waste of time (how can I be skeptical when I can't exactly define my held beliefs in a meaningful way?)

-A belief that skepticism is rooted in doubt, or, an insidious need/desire/impulse to question just for the sake of questioning.

-The behavior/attitudes/experiences with self-professed skeptics making the concept of skepticism distasteful.

-Being conditioned to reject skepticism.

-An understanding of one's own beliefs to an extent where skepticism (grounded in reality/nutsandbolts/materialism???maybemaybenot) is something foreign to belief (putting a bandaid on a broken remote control), leading to a "why would you be skeptical about religious belief" attitude.

-Elliot

[Tricky]

I vaguely remember it...errr...it's somewhere...
Check in your pincushion. I often find points there.
I definitely do think that skeptics are dependent on being surrounded by things to make them skeptical. Like, if there weren't so many believers around circulating ideas, you'd probably call yourself something else. Like, you can name 150 things you're skeptical about right off the bat, and probably many, or most, of those things would be topics that others weren't skeptical about. A cynic needs things to be cynical about in the same way.
I dunno. I was raised with a love of science, but I wasn't raised as a skeptic. Mom used to say things like "there's no such thing as ghosts", but it wasn't like aversion to the paranormal was drilled into me. But I agree that my skepticism is most pronounced about things that seem to demand it, namely superstitious beliefs, including religious superstitions. But really, I'm not as cynical as you might imagine. I'm so darned Pollyanna that diabetics can't come near me.


It isn't how I perceive a skeptic, or how they are perceived in general, I have an idea past that. Many of the threads on this forum are "in reaction to" threads. Look at what these believers are doing...look at what they're saying on this forum...don't you hate it when people say this...that kind of stuff. It's very reactionary.

LOL. Well, you are in the religion section after all. Many of the threads in the politics section would be indistinguishable from any other "open" forum. Yes, I am interested in what is happening to advance skepticism among the religious. Call it a hobby.

But praying in public isn't the same as proselytizing (God, I think I spell that word wrong every time). If it was, surely the closest followers of Jesus wouldn't have proselytized ever, but they certainly did. The praying in public bit I think has to do with people who wear sackcloth and wail in church and beat their breasts mercilessly all the while keeping a lookout for all the people who are watching their spectacle.
That's an extreme example. Another would be the lawsuits that people have filed to allow them to say a prayer aloud before sporting events. Or the "10 Commandments Judge". There are lots and lots of Christians who want to shove their religion in my face without any trace of sublet.

(BTW, Install the spell checker. I will save you a lot of breast-beating. Just click on the little http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/editor/spelling.gif icon.)

Yes, Christians may have different ideas about proselytizing. Does the world have a better opinion about Christians who don't try to preach their faith to others? Heck yeah. The Bible also says that the world will reject us, so that only makes sense.
The world? Well, most people don't want people of other religions preaching to them. Most Christians don't want Muslims preaching to them. But in my world (the USA), Christian proselytizing is considered very much okay by most of the Christians I know, including the majority of my family. That's because its safe to do so here. I'm betting they wouldn't be so hot to testify if they lived in Iraq.


Judaism isn't interested in converting others...Islam...it depends who you ask. I'm not certain about Eastern religions. Christianity definitely stands out in this regard.

If you're saying that Christians ought not to spread the gospel, you'd probably be correct from a secular perspective. It's cooler to have sex with sheep probably than to hand out bibles.
Actually, I've made the point before that it is natural to want to share the things that have moved you deeply. It's institutionalized in much of Christianity and becomes a bit phony sounding because they are often repeating what they have heard, not sharing their own experiences, but of course I understand. The hard part is accepting that others do not share your enthusiasm.

Sex with sheep? So you admit, you have been to some of the atheist rituals.:D


No, I agree with you on this one. In fact it's pretty well established. I don't equate intelligence with education level (I'm sure you don't either). Yes, the more education you have, the more exposure you have to alternative ideas and alternative perspectives. In addition, I think there has been a continuing snowballing effect in higher education where the *ivory tower* perspective inculcates the members into thinking that they think in a more sophisticated way than non-educated believers. This could mean atheism, agnosticism, or a get-along-with-everybody brand of Christianity. In the grad courses I've taken, I definitely saw how many sorts of ideas were just intolerable, and I'm talking not about religion, I rarely ever brought that up, that would have been particularly dangerous.

You are right, I don't equate education with intelligence, but in the US today, it is pretty much possible for any intelligent person to get an education, so the correlation factor is fairly high. What I find out is that most intelligent people desperately want education.I'm not sure why, because education is very good for curing you of intelligence. I used to think I had intelligence, but when I went to college, I found out just how dumb I was.

But I never felt like religion was a taboo subject in college. Quite the contrary. It was simply discussed with a more open-minded attitude. Actually though, I had one roommate who was an officer in the Campus Crusade for Christ. He didn't like me very much.
And what's wrong with the get-along-with-everybody brand of Christianity? It's my favorite kind.


Sort of I think. I can't count the number of times (I really can't) that I've talked to atheists and have them say something like *I never though of that/considered that*, something like that. Certain questions (maybe the obvious ones)...yes, I think that atheists have thought about certain questions.
Thanks. We try to listen to ideas we haven't heard before. I've used that phrase many times. It doesn't mean I'll buy into a new idea after I have thought about it, but it does mean I will give it consideration.

As for rank-and-file Christians, I'm not sure how definite I'd peg them on this one. Short of taking a poll (and in a poll people might, I dunno, inflate their answer I guess)...I guess I could give this one to you. A response could be what's there to think long and hard about? How many issues/questions in life have we *really* thought long and hard about...and is that a reason to necessarily be skeptical about another?
I suppose it is my upbringing. I was raised in the Bible Belt. My experience with Christianity is mostly one of people preaching things that, if you question them, they can't explain. They haven't thought about it. There were exceptions, of course, but all too rare. Or maybe I just caught them at a bad time, like when other people were listening. It is not at all cool to question your faith in public in Alabama. But I went to a dozen different churches and asked people why they believed what they believed. The usual answer was essentially that they wanted to go to heaven and believing was the way to get there. Being skeptical about the existence of heaven never ever occurred to them.


But is that necessarily a good/bad thing? How about the Christians who are not fundamentalists, or literalists? They would not have that sort of *litmus* test. If the implication is *I found 398234 errors in the Bible, therefore Christianity is bunk*, the Christian could say to you *why are you so hung up about the Bible*? The Bible is not the same as Jesus, and Christians believe in Jesus.
It is probably true that the majority of Christians are not fundamentalists or literalists or proselytizers. In fact, I'd say that the majority really don't think about it that much. It's just part of the background noise of the society they live in. Studies have shown that the majority of prison inmates in the US are at least nominally Christian, but I'm betting it wasn't a big part of their life.

But I would say it is a bad thing if people profess to a religion and yet don't even known the fundamentals of its most important work. That says to me that they aren't religious because of knowledge, but because of indoctrination. It would be like someone arguing against intelligent design when they didn't even understand the fundamentals of evolution. There are some of these people, and I have little respect for them.

Now, I do think that Christians ought to know the Bible better than they do. I also think that a person who has some *general understandings* about the Bible may know more about the Bible than the bean counters who search the Bible for contradictions and what not. In other words, someone who proves they know the Bible by quoting passages, or listing contradictions, may know less about the Bible than a person who can do neither, but has it in a different perspective.

Hard to say. It may be a mistake to take a single verse or two which apparently contradict each other and use it as evidence that the bible is wrong, but it is no less a mistake to take a single verse or two and use it as an excuse to demonize homosexuals or non-Christians. I have seen both things done.

Still, even understanding context, there are vast and unresolvable (IMO) contradictions in the Bible which no amount of "reading in context" will explain. For example, I saw you on another thread trying to deflect the question of the great flood. It is a hopeless task. As long as that story remains in the bible, it will be brought forth as a very good piece of evidence that the Old Testament God is not at all loving. I know you are not one who puts a lot of stock in that fable, but some do. If they do, I will test them on it. For folks like you, it is not an issue.


Yes, the potential for scary is there...but the potential for scary is there for all good things (or all things I guess), like love and nuclear science and knock knock jokes.
That's a good point. But I've seen even belove men of God, like Oral Roberts, use their hotline to God as an excuse to get money. When you think of people like this, you think of Jim Jones and Reverend Moon and David Koresh. The ones I respect are the ones who are humble about their connection with God. But unfortunately, that is rarely profitable.


I'd be skeptical of those people too, seeing how God's plan has kind of already been revealed.
I strongly question that. If it were revealed, then most Christians would agree on it. They don't.


I get you now. So, even if some people in the past would have had religious explanations for gravity, that would have been beside the point. Meaning, I could have religious sentiments behind planetary motion, but that wouldn't be a religious belief, because it's already in a category. Do I have it right?
Yep. You got it. Astronomy could be demonstrated to any neutral observer, even though we didn't (and really, still don't) understand the mechanics. Astrology could not and cannot.

That was the thing I was wondering about...that gravity could be category 3 if people believed it was religious, or God-caused, or whatever.
The presumed cause could be category 3, since it could not be demonstrated. It is the difference between "I believe gravity works" and "I believe N-rays cause Gravity".

I was thinking more about the past view of meteorites. They (scientists) didn't think that rocks fell from the sky. They thought that they were always there. So like if some farmer said "I saw that there rock fall from the sky" they'd laugh at him and say "no, rocks don't fall from the sky".

Maybe. I'm not familiar with the scientific denial of meteorites. If they did, they were wrong, and other scientists were the ones who proved them wrong. But let's not get into the "they laughed at Galileo" fallacy.

Well I could give you past examples. I couldn't give you present examples until they were demonstrably proved, and then they would join the ranks of past examples. Knowing the history of science, any skeptic should understand that if science had faulty beliefs currently, that's just the way it goes, nothing to get to hung up about.
Nothing at all to get hung up about. We are almost certainly wrong in some ways about everything we claim to know. But we keep getting closer. I expect this trend to continue.


That works. The sensible opposition then would be to question whether or not skeptics were really evaluating information fairly, without bias. The Christian could also be skeptical of skeptics who have filters that rule out possibilities. Skepticism would be a way of understanding and explaining the world then...but you could be skeptical about the way that happened in practice.

I know what you are trying to say, but it is not really about the very real flaws in the methods of some skeptics. It is about seeking truth. That's really all that skepticism is. It says that truth is not personal. If it isn't true for everyone, then it isn't true. (Didn't Pontius Pilate say something similar?) And that seems reasonable to me. How is it possible for two "truths" to be mutually contradicting? That destroys the meaning of truth. If I could, I would add a top category to my hierarchy of beliefs which would be "truth", meaning that which is unassailable from any viewpoint. It's an ideal that we cannot reach, but that we must keep reaching for.

I don't know how you can judge if someone has overcome his own biases. Do you find out by asking them? Probably not. What's the litmus test? Set of questions to ask? A feeling you get? This is a bit murkier.
LOL. Yeah, it's a bit tricky. For Christianity, you might ask if someone believes the bible is A) Literally true B) Mostly true, if read in context C) A metaphorical truth D) Probably not true E) A pack of lies F) The only way to know is to test what it says against reality.
If you answer anything but F, then you're not objective about Christianity.

Now I must retire. I'll try to finish up tomorrow. We do tend to get verbose in these things, don't we?

[SirPhilip]

Just to be sure I get what you're saying...are you saying that faith is essentially challenged? If that's what you're saying, it's not oxymoronical to challenge something that is essentially challenged. Let's say that something is fundamentally unstable, like a three legged chair. Is it oxymoronical to sit on it until it breaks? No. I'm helping you out here, I came up with an extreme analogy to suit your point of view regarding faith...I just don't get the oxymoron thing. Faith is the practice of eliminating personal doubt - it takes a myriad of forms but most common is following a written set of rules or principles through a trust relationship, without direct validation. Once something is subjectively validated, it is no longer faith, but considered objective. Paradoxically, faith is a transition though to direct objective experience.

Yes, by definition of course they are separate. It is your belief that people should only have faith in *natural* things. I think people can (and do) have faith in both. If such people are wrong, oh well I guess.Well, that action only leads to insanity. As you change, the way you grasp nature changes, but neither you or nature actually changes.

Well seems is the crucial word, it's pretty blind of you to say that the "only" thing that seems to apply to religious is what you say. I mean surely you can come up with 39 or so different negative descriptors, don't you think? There is both objective and subjective ignorance (which of course are interdependent). Most religious goals are universal: the person wants to attain eternal peace and happiness, and lift uncertainty and affliction. Most just go about this by perpetuating the latter two.

Self-deceit...I dunno. Objective reality is what it is, regardless of everybody believes in it, or nobody believes in it.Objective reality is mutable, and is no different fundamentally from subjective experience. Only time and circumstance give (you) the impression of it.

See, if they didn't believe in that, they'd believe in something else. And we can define that something else, and then you'll get people lining up to say that they are still self-deceivers. And I think that you're also a self-deceiver! Take that! And maybe you are, and maybe you aren't! So let's just classify the *other* as irrational, self-deceiving, illogical unreasonable silly people! Yeah! Tee hee! Belief that something is fundamentally true or might be, or something else isn't valid - all these things arise from uncertainty, and uncertainty is a result of personal circumstance. But it is a circular activity that doesn't change the circumstances one experiences at all. It is like running in place, you think you are going somewhere by exerting effort, but end up where you started off, always, but with stronger legs to gain mental footholds on things. People who have matured beyond that, realize that the circumstances that allow them to think objectively also allow absurd conclusions, and both, while seemingly having different qualities, are equally absurd - ignorance being then, discrimination.


Hey man, you can't believe as religious people believe. No problem. You extend that into calling them (us) silly and what not. Not...such a problem. I'm pretty sure that I'm sillier than you are, but I'm not totally certain. I am fairly sure that persisting in those thoughts is just a pesky affliction of mine though.

Meaning, I'm not going to lose sleep over people thinking that I'm silly.No, you will lose sleep thinking about things as being silly and not silly.

Now, I'm a bit more concerned not for the stated judgment, but for your need to have those judgments.Mysterious kind of boredom.


Because you most certainly don't need to have those judgments. And based on this, I could conclude that your belief system is founded on a personal need to think of yourself as mentally/morally/intellectually superior to the mass of humanity. Actually I think the vast majority of people understand the most important questions perfectly, they just lack self-effort. A junkie may understand real peace, contentment, and happiness better than most people - but be unable to find a way out of it, and by extension, any hope. The person will then start searching outside of themselves, praying to things and people, or discriminating (drugs will ruin your life), or simply destroying themselves (I can't overcome anything, life is unfair, etc) - all in an effort to not go out the same door they came in. Even worse, one of these things might even provide temporary relief, and make it even harder for the person to ever change the root cause. This is ignorance and having faith in silly things. As to moral/intellectual superiority, I've yet to see anyone who doesn't understand the big questions fine enough. This is a virtue of being human that few ever appreciate.

Anyhow, all religous believers are silly. So that's what you're saying. Something only becomes meaningful in a subjective sense. No phenomena, imaginary or tangible, has objective meaning by it's own accord. (good) Religious beliefs address tangible suffering by attacking the intangible root cause. Affliction is a result of non-essential action. A person who isn't ignorant sees a bunch of angels dancing on a lightpole as no more meaningful than an apple falling to the ground, and sees no essential difference between rationalism or superstition. This is what illusionists like David Copperfield indirectly teach people. The audience witnesses fantastic, absurd, and meaningful events for entertainment value, the suspension of disbelief is so high that the audience secretly realizes that there is no difference in essence between a paranormal event and one that is staged. The result is some people walk out from the experience far wiser, and realize that a staged event is no more meaningful than a real one. If they lived in a world where he really did do that, so what?

What's the next step? Conquering the whimsical affliction known as twisting one's mind into cramped forms by spending too much time on these forums. :)


Will informing people that they are silly help to change them, or, are you not all that concerned with whether or not silly people stay silly? What is the difference between someone acting like that God warrior hag, or silliness for it's own sake, like Jim Carey (or Robert Anton Wilson)? The answer one is suffering because of it, while the others aren't. Yet silliness itself isn't the issue. Robert Anton Wilson, while being a pointed, sharp intellectual, doesn't invalidate silly things.

Is it silly to point out to silly people that they are silly? Have you ever considered alternative ways of expressing your sentiments, or, are you content with them? I'd say most of the time, but my multiple edits reveal otherwise. :boggled:

Do you mean silly in a negative way? Meaning, God forbid that you're ever silly, or, considered to be silly by others, but, does it matter if other people are silly? Well, your writing style makes my head want to spin, which is a silly idea when you think about it.

Assuming that you're worked out the silly beliefs of the believers, would you consider it to be silly to even try (or continue to) them out? Well, just consider all that an attempt to be skeptical about your beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, right?I have faith people will eventually sort things out fine by themselves. :)

[elliotfc]

Sex with sheep? So you admit, you have been to some of the atheist rituals.:D

Well, I've done some peeping. 8)

But I never felt like religion was a taboo subject in college. Quite the contrary. It was simply discussed with a more open-minded attitude. Actually though, I had one roommate who was an officer in the Campus Crusade for Christ. He didn't like me very much.

Ah yes, anything's up for grabs in late night dorm talks, but I'm thinking more like a fundamentalist Christian in a gender studies class.

And what's wrong with the get-along-with-everybody brand of Christianity? It's my favorite kind.

Pffft! That ought not be the motive force behind Christianity! They killed Jesus after all.

I suppose it is my upbringing. I was raised in the Bible Belt. My experience with Christianity is mostly one of people preaching things that, if you question them, they can't explain. They haven't thought about it.

Or, they don't *need* to explain or think about it. When you question them, you are after something. An explanation.

Or, they think about it theologically, with all the accompanying theological truisms. They make sense to themselves, and think about it in a way that you couldn't because you lack their postulates.

But I went to a dozen different churches and asked people why they believed what they believed. The usual answer was essentially that they wanted to go to heaven and believing was the way to get there. Being skeptical about the existence of heaven never ever occurred to them.

I can see that.

But I would say it is a bad thing if people profess to a religion and yet don't even known the fundamentals of its most important work.

We'd have to define the fundamentals. Actually, if you ask a Christian who has never read the Bible what the fundamentals of the Bible are, he/she'd say something like "well, you had the Jews, and then Jesus showed up, and they crucified him and he rose from the dead, and then you had Christians". Are those the fundamentals of the Bible? I think most Christians have that down pretty good.

I wish we'd differentiate fundamentalist from literalist. I think when we talk about fundamentalists (me included) we're thinking about literalists. I think that someone can understand the fundamentals of calculus without being able to work with Taylor Series.

That says to me that they aren't religious because of knowledge, but because of indoctrination. It would be like someone arguing against intelligent design when they didn't even understand the fundamentals of evolution. There are some of these people, and I have little respect for them.

Not that there's anything wrong with indoctrination! The word has no inherent value. It can't be always wrong/bad, nobody believes that it's always wrong in fact.

And nobody understands the fundamentals of evolution, and that goes triple for neo-Darwinists. :P

Hard to say. It may be a mistake to take a single verse or two which apparently contradict each other and use it as evidence that the bible is wrong, but it is no less a mistake to take a single verse or two and use it as an excuse to demonize homosexuals or non-Christians. I have seen both things done.

I totally agree with you on this one.

Still, even understanding context, there are vast and unresolvable (IMO) contradictions in the Bible which no amount of "reading in context" will explain. For example, I saw you on another thread trying to deflect the question of the great flood. It is a hopeless task. As long as that story remains in the bible, it will be brought forth as a very good piece of evidence that the Old Testament God is not at all loving. I know you are not one who puts a lot of stock in that fable, but some do. If they do, I will test them on it. For folks like you, it is not an issue.

Let's separate theology from meteorology/geology on this one...

"The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time."

That's the situation. All evil, all the time. To that extent, it makes sense why God's wrath would come down. The loving part? *Sparing Noah*. The result? Over 6 billion people today.

How would we, today, have had God handle the situation? Coming down to earth, and giving people the what for and all that? But that's going to happen later with Jesus, at that time nobody would have had any use for Jesus, Jesus only makes sense in the context of the whole of the Jewish experience/experiment. Or should we have God just let things get progressively worse and worse and worse? Well, God's doing that right now.

I understand the flood story in the reality of the day. Gods were totally scary. They were always pissed off. A God sending down a worldwide flood to wipe out humanity? Yeah, that sounds about right. The kicker is that he spared some people. Why shouldn't he have wiped out all of humanity, when evil was in their hearts continually? But God does love humanity, that's the point of the flood story. Yeah, a scary god, but he saved a few people and humanity got back on track, or, at least repopluated the planet.

Kind of like how people see the Abraham/Isaac story. What father who loved his son would sacrifice him to a god? But Abraham would say...whadda ya mean, it's BECAUSE I love my son so much that I sacrifice him to this god who tells me to sacrifice him. And the kicker? God stops his hand.

So, the love comes out where you wouldn't expect it. The stories would have more resonsance in the past than today, since we have visions of Jesus and Gandhi in our heads.

One more thing. While I may not believe/understand the Flood narrative as other Christians do, it still has more truth to me than the temperature highs and lows that you can find in an almanac.

That's a good point. But I've seen even belove men of God, like Oral Roberts, use their hotline to God as an excuse to get money. When you think of people like this, you think of Jim Jones and Reverend Moon and David Koresh. The ones I respect are the ones who are humble about their connection with God. But unfortunately, that is rarely profitable.

But they are after profit too, right? Eternity with God? The profit of understanding that you are following your ideals of justice and compassion? The profit in intellectual satisfaction?

Everybody's after profit, we just define it differently. If your *true* God is money, you're after monetary profit above everything else.

I strongly question that. If it were revealed, then most Christians would agree on it. They don't.

But most Christians agree about the *fundamental* revelation of the person of Jesus Christ.

The presumed cause could be category 3, since it could not be demonstrated. It is the difference between "I believe gravity works" and "I believe N-rays cause Gravity".

So gravity itself is outside of the hierarchy; it's how we view gravity. That makes sense. The point of the hierarchy is that there are better ways, or better types of faith, that others. That may or may not be true, and, if it is true, the best types of faith might be the religious faith. Who knows, we can only have faith in the worth of the faith that we have.

Nothing at all to get hung up about. We are almost certainly wrong in some ways about everything we claim to know. But we keep getting closer. I expect this trend to continue.

The explanations get closer, but the reality is unaffected by the explanations. That's why I don't know how crucial this is. The difference between accepting something and explaining it, and accepting something and not explaining it, is personal intellectual satisfaction. Actually that isn't exactly true either, because a different explanation, or lack thereof, can also be intellectually satisfying.

I know what you are trying to say, but it is not really about the very real flaws in the methods of some skeptics. It is about seeking truth. That's really all that skepticism is. It says that truth is not personal.

I agree that objective truth is not personal, but explanations by definition are personal. If you can't explain celestial motion that has no impact on celestial motion.

If it isn't true for everyone, then it isn't true. (Didn't Pontius Pilate say something similar?)

Quid Est Veritas?

And that seems reasonable to me. How is it possible for two "truths" to be mutually contradicting?

Well...you could have a hierarchy of truth. You could have servicable/workable truths that aren't as pure or aren't as true as truths above them in the hierarchy. Meaning we have our explanations, and then maybe God will tell us other explanations and we'll say "oh".

There could be a Grand Unifying Theory for Everything, that we have yet to possess, yet we still have truths that get the job done for now. Are those, then, really truths?

LOL. Yeah, it's a bit tricky. For Christianity, you might ask if someone believes the bible is A) Literally true B) Mostly true, if read in context C) A metaphorical truth D) Probably not true E) A pack of lies F) The only way to know is to test what it says against reality.
If you answer anything but F, then you're not objective about Christianity.

But F is dependent on chronology. We define reality by what we can understand in the time that we live.

-Elliot

Now I must retire. I'll try to finish up tomorrow. We do tend to get verbose in these things, don't we?[/QUOTE]

[elliotfc]

Faith is the practice of eliminating personal doubt - it takes a myriad of forms but most common is following a written set of rules or principles through a trust relationship, without direct validation.

That sounds right...maybe though I'd say the *result of* eliminating personal doubt, not the practice of. If you are eliminating personal doubt in a rigorous sense, that is more of a directed process, and I don't think faith falls under the category of process...or maybe it does. But I think you put it well.

Once something is subjectively validated, it is no longer faith, but considered objective.

Right, it's subjectively considered objective.

Paradoxically, faith is a transition though to direct objective experience.

Maybe you can flesh this point out a bit more. I think it *can* be a transition to that, but not necessarily.

Well, that action only leads to insanity.

You said this in response to me saying "people can (and do) have faith in both [natural and supernatural things]". If you are correct, that having faith in both natural/supernatural things leads to insanity, then the vast majority of people have been insane. Which is a great opinion to have I guess, but makes the word *insane* pretty darn useless.

I believe in a supernatural God, and I believe in the scientifically explained processes of cell division. How does that make me insane exactly, other than being a truism (*anyone* who believes in God and also excepts scientific explanations *must* be insane).

As you change, the way you grasp nature changes, but neither you or nature actually changes.

Mostly agreed. But if my intellectual understanding changes, I do consider that to be a change in myself.

Most religious goals are universal: the person wants to attain eternal peace and happiness and lift uncertainty and affliction. Most just go about this by perpetuating the latter two.

:)

All I'll say with this is...this loaded sentiment can and *does* apply to non-religious philosophies as well. The more we are certain about, the more we are uncertain about. As for affliction, religious people certainly do not have a monopoly on increasing affliction in humanity. Did you hear about those human guinea pigs in Britain? You can't blame that on religion.

Objective reality is mutable, and is no different fundamentally from subjective experience. Only time and circumstance give (you) the impression of it.

No, it must be fundamentally different because it can exist in the absence of subjective experience.

I'm purposesly going to break up your post here to make it more digestable.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Belief that something is fundamentally true or might be, or something else isn't valid - all these things arise from uncertainty, and uncertainty is a result of personal circumstance.

Personal circumstance...that applies to everyone...uncertainty...that applies to everyone...and belief...that applies to everyone. So this is one way of summing up the human condition, and to that extent I agree with you completely.

What I will add is that personal belief is *directed*. Does uncertainty drive the direction? Maybe. But if we view this as a mathematical limit...if you're approaching uncertainty in the infinite direction, you are *not* going to be accumulating one belief after another, because the more uncertain you become, the fewer beliefs you will have. If you're approaching *subjective* certainty in the infinite direction, you will accumulate more and more beliefs.

In general...and I'm trying to appreciate your point, which I think has some validity...yes, uncertainty does drive us...and it drives us to search for certainty (subjective certainty of course) which will lead us to accept or settle on beliefs. I guess you're saying that *certainty* is a sham, because it's founded on uncertainty, and it's an illusion that any certainty driven by uncertainty is anything like certainty. But I don't see how this is limited to only a certain group of people, like religious believers.

But it is a circular activity that doesn't change the circumstances one experiences at all. It is like running in place, you think you are going somewhere by exerting effort, but end up where you started off, always, but with stronger legs to gain mental footholds on things

I like this.

People who have matured beyond that realize that the circumstances that allow them to think objectively also allow absurd conclusions and both, while seemingly having different qualities, are equally absurd - ignorance being then, discrimination.

I think I like this. Could you flesh this out a bit more?

I'm pretty sure that I'm sillier than you are, but I'm not totally certain.

This would be a tough one, to compare the size of our sillinesses, I know mine is really big, but I don't whip it out all the time so you'd have to way of appreciating it. :)

The thing is...when I'm being silly...I appreciate the fact that I'm being silly. When other people are being silly, they may not appreciate the fact that they are being silly. Who's *truly* silly, a silly person who doesn't know that they are being silly, or a silly person who is purposefully being silly?

Actually I think the vast majority of people understand the most important questions perfectly, they just lack self-effort.

No, I think they would just channel or direct their effort differently. As for effort...I teach kids piano/violin...I don't think there is a correclation between being adept at an instrument and the amount of effort put into it. Meaning I have students who probably practice once a week who are geometrically better than students who practice several times a week.

Or, looking at it another way, if somebody *gets* something with minimal effort, I'm not necessarily going to hold that against them. If somebody *gets* something else *that I reject* with maximal effort, I may hold that against them. I can't make blanket statements about either case, but I'm just saying that this is far from being clear-cut.

A junkie may understand real peace, contentment, and happiness better than most people - but be unable to find a way out of it, and by extension, any hope.

I'm having a hard time appreciating what you're trying to say here...that's probably on me, and not on you...but I'll do the best I can.

*IF* a junkie did understand real peace/contentment/happiness...the obvious question is...why become a junkie? So at the onset, I could be completely skeptical of your point. Unless you're saying...that only *after* becoming a junkie can the junkie be able to appreciate what real peace, contentment, and happiness (life before enslavement to drugs). So is your point that you can't understand real peace/contentment/happiness unless you experience something that is totally *not* real peace/contentment/happiness?

Or, are you saying that the junkie experiences *temporary* peace/contentment/happiness (chemical euphoria), but it's fleeting and followed by major lows, and in this sense the junkie truly understands peace/contentment/happiness (which would be continual chemical euphoria minus the lows)?

The person will then start searching outside of themselves, praying to things and people, or discriminating (drugs will ruin your life), or simply destroying themselves (I can't overcome anything, life is unfair, etc) - all in an effort to not go out the same door they came in. Even worse, one of these things might even provide temporary relief, and make it even harder for the person to ever change the root cause.

But what if it is more than temporary relief!

What if a junkie turns to religion, and that helps the junkie overcome the addiction to drugs? So religion, in your view, is the substitue for the drug. But the person *stops* taking drugs, is able to become a *productive* person (hold a job, have a family, contribute to society) and then dies content (or, as content as a human has any right to be, or possibly be). Would that still be temporary relief? Now, if you believe that oblivion follows human life, I guess everything would be temporary relief.

What is this root cause (in general) that you refer to...or, is this root cause individualistic?

I think you're suggesting that *something* inside of *some people* makes them turn to the things that they choose to turn to...and when you say temporary relief...you imply that these things are shams. So my question would be...what things *aren't* shams? And what would be your way of discriminating? Or, are you not discriminating at all, and just using a sort of extreme example in the junkie?

This is ignorance and having faith in silly things.

You're speaking to the junkie who turns to something outside him/herself to overcome the addiction. I'd say that if you're drowning and someone throws you a rope (outside force), it doesn't matter how silly that outside force is. I'd rather a silly person save me, than drown.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Something only becomes meaningful in a subjective sense. No phenomena, imaginary or tangible, has objective meaning by it's own accord. (good) Religious beliefs address tangible suffering by attacking the intangible root cause.

This works.

Affliction is a result of non-essential action.

Are you saying that affliction is avoidable? Or, are you just talking about cerebral affliction? But is even that avoidable?

A person who isn't ignorant sees a bunch of angels dancing on a lightpole as no more meaningful than an apple falling to the ground, and sees no essential difference between rationalism or superstition.

So this would imply that a person who is ignorant would see and essential difference between rationalism and superstition. But there is an essential difference between rationalism and superstition, isn't there? Granted, I think they are both a form of belief...but by definition, aren't they essentially different? Or, are you saying that this difference is illusory?

This is what illusionists like David Copperfield indirectly teach people. The audience witnesses fantastic, absurd, and meaningful events for entertainment value, the suspension of disbelief is so high that the audience secretly realizes that there is no difference in essence between a paranormal event and one that is staged.

So secretly that I would say that they would not even articulate as you do!

The result is some people walk out from the experience far wiser, and realize that a staged event is no more meaningful than a real one. If they lived in a world where he really did do that, so what?

I think I agree with you here. A person could see a movie that totally changes the way they view life (or, at least many people make that claim).

What is the difference between someone acting like that God warrior hag, or silliness for it's own sake, like Jim Carey (or Robert Anton Wilson)? The answer one is suffering because of it, while the others aren't. Yet silliness itself isn't the issue. Robert Anton Wilson, while being a pointed, sharp intellectual, doesn't invalidate silly things.

This depends on your opinion regarding suffering. Some people believe that suffering, even self-initiated suffering, can lead to greater understanding. This is a highly subjective/speculative point...but, I would reject your notion about the *badness* of suffering (if that is your point)...and the need for...suffering avoidance? I don't think you've articulated your opinion about suffering actually, so maybe I shouldn't jump to conclusions.

I gather that you are implying that some people only have themselves to blame for suffering. And if you're on an intellectual track that is making you suffer, you ought to get off that track. On the surface, I'd disagree, because people who work out suffer, but that's a sign that they are making progress.

I have faith people will eventually sort things out fine by themselves. :)

Mine is just the opposite! I think that people eventually will be offered the opportunity to have things sorted for them; whether or not they're keen on the offer is up to the them!

-Elliot

[the_bgma]

From the Book of Religion:

Why do people adhere so strictly to such absurd teachings? There are several reasons. The first and foremost is that they believe what they were taught by their parents. From a young and impressionable age, many children are taught the fables of god, biblical creation, Adam and Eve, a flood that covered the earth killing most people, and various supernatural miracles along the way. If such beliefs are not dispelled by their parents, but instead reinforced, many of these children will mature into adults who are absolutely convinced of the inerrancy of their teachings, regardless of the evidence in front of their eyes. Especially as children, we are built to absorb and accept knowledge. We are built to accept that certain actions are dangerous, due to our parents’ warnings, before actually experiencing the consequences. We accept words and speech patterns and games and songs from our parents without argument. It is crucial for children to accept such information without question, for their safety and their development as people. So it should be no wonder that they will also accept myths without question if presented to them by their parents.

Another reason that people continue to believe in traditional religions is that it provides them comfort. It is comforting to think there is some grand plan for our existence, that there is some fascinating place we go to after we die, that our loved ones who have died aren’t merely dead bodies but have gone on to someplace where they are loved. If everything worked according to some god’s plan, we would be free of the burning desire to explore, to find out why the world is as it is, for it is merely god’s work. We would not have to challenge our station in life and seek better things for ourselves and our children, as our reward awaits us in some perfect afterlife. If bad things happen, our suffering is mitigated by the fact that “god works in mysterious ways.” This coping mechanism was very important in the past when death before old age was much more common. Such beliefs are comforting, especially in times of suffering, but that does not make them true.

Finally, there is a genetic component to our so-called spirituality. As societies evolved and became more and more important in the lives of people, various religions came to dominate in different societies. Those who followed the dominant religion were better-received in society, and thus were more marriageable and had an evolutionary advantage. Those who saw religion as a sham were outcast, and less likely to procreate. As this cycle continued, people who had feelings of spirituality and were thus more religious gained a genetic foothold in our population. Those with genetic traits for less spirituality did not always die out as outcasts or heretics, as they were sometimes more driven to solve problems—instead of blindly accepting previous teachings—and thus better themselves, improving their chance of passing on their genes. But with continued intermarriage, it is likely that we all now carry the genes that give us a sense of spirituality in one degree or another. Too much and you’re obsessed with religion (possibly hurting reproduction), too little and you’re somewhat more likely to be outcast (again possibly hurting reproduction).

***********************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist

[SPQR]

How closely is skeptical thinking related to intelligence?

Are really bright people likely to be more skeptical than those of modest intellect?

If you tend to think skeptically, do you apply it to everything or are there occasions when you don't tend to apply it?
I think it depends on one's upbringing.

I know many very intelligent, i.e. booksmart, people who believe in various woo-woo things. If your parents believe in something, chances are you will either vehemently rebel against or accept it.