Sorry, Hal, I can't agree with you

[kourama]

I read the commentary on Friday, and some comments here, and thought about it, but I had a nagging feeling about it.

The SacredCows thread mentions it, but I want to address it more directly.

Hal, you claim that you can be a "true skeptic" and a deist at the same time. I cannot agree. I must make an assumption about what it means to be a true skeptic, and I'll return to that in a moment.

You mention that you believe in a god. Why not 2, or 4 or 13.72 gods? Leaving aside any argument over what the definition of a deity is exactly, you are stating that you have a belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Further, you mention that you pray. So, not only do you believe this thing, whatever it is, exists, you are assuming that it has certain properties. How do you know it hears your prayers? How do you know your prayers have any effect? You have likely seen the results of experiments into the effect of prayer and healing. You are likely aware of the conclusions of the majority of these experiments.

I am not saying that being a "pure skeptic" means being rational all the time about everything. I happen to like salted licorice for no rational reason, and I have heard that Isaac Asimov was afraid of flying and preferred to drive. The difference here is the acknowledgement of irrationality. I know perfectly well, as, no doubt, Asimov knew that these behaviours didn't have rational explanations. So, if you are willing to accept that your belief is irrational, then you are still worthy, in my opinion, of the title of "pure skeptic".

But, are you making that admission? The article on Friday certainly doesn't make it seem that way, in fact, you wrote "I believe strongly that you can believe strongly in both God and skepticism". If not, then you must explain how your belief is rational, or at least not irrational. Your strong belief must be backed up by strong evidence and/or a strong argument.

There is one sentence that seems like a ray of light here "So I am not completely consistent in my thinking, perhaps." It seems you are taking the first steps toward atheism, which is an admission that things don't quite make sense when you put a god in your universe.

Hal, I hate writing this because you're one of the good guys. If my reasoning is flawed, then please correct me.

I want to add a further note:

In my less mature days, I looked down upon people who believed in deities with disdain. My experience with religion has made me less than fair on the subject on too many occasions. I have since learned that you can be a logical, intelligent person and hold irrational beliefs at the same time. You are proof that it is still possible to be a skeptic, but a "true skeptic" must apply his skepticism even, no, especially, to his most cherished beliefs.

Thanks.

EDIT: typo

[Dub]

Originally posted by kourama
I read the commentary on Friday, and some comments here, and thought about it, but I had a nagging feeling about it.

The SacredCows thread mentions it, but I want to address it more directly.

Hal, you claim that you can be a "true skeptic" and a deist at the same time. I cannot agree. I must make an assumption about what it means to be a true skeptic, and I'll return to that in a moment.

You mention that you believe in a god. Why not 2, or 4 or 13.72 gods? Leaving aside any argument over what the definition of a deity is exactly, you are stating that you have a belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Further, you mention that you pray. So, not only do you believe this thing, whatever it is, exists, you are assuming that it has certain properties. How do you know it hears your prayers? How do you know your prayers have any effect? You have likely seen the results of experiments into the effect of prayer and healing. You are likely aware of the conclusions of the majority of these experiments.

I am not saying that being a "pure skeptic" means being rational all the time about everything. I happen to like salted licorice for no rational reason, and I have heard that Isaac Asimov was afraid of flying and preferred to drive. The difference here is the acknowledgement of irrationality. I know perfectly well, as, no doubt, Asimov knew that these behaviours didn't have rational explanations. So, if you are willing to accept that your belief is irrational, then you are still worthy, in my opinion, of the title of "pure skeptic".


I agree with you, but i think your analogies are incorrect. Your liking of 'salted licorice' is not irrational, you just cant explain why you like it. Likes/dislikes are the result of many complex interacting behaviours. So, while you may not be able to explain why you like it, its not irrational. Same with a fear of flying. While conciously people know that it is safe, it is their unconcious that produces the fear. So again, while they cant explain why they are afraid, its not irrational per se.

[kourama]

Originally posted by Dub


I agree with you, but i think your analogies are incorrect. Your liking of 'salted licorice' is not irrational, you just cant explain why you like it. Likes/dislikes are the result of many complex interacting behaviours. So, while you may not be able to explain why you like it, its not irrational. Same with a fear of flying. While conciously people know that it is safe, it is their unconcious that produces the fear. So again, while they cant explain why they are afraid, its not irrational per se.

Hmm, I responded to this, but the site went a bit wonky. My response basically was:

Rational fear: being a soldier on the front line of a battle
Irrational fear: fear of flying over driving when you know flying is safer.

The licorice example probably was a poor one, though.

Sorry Hal, me too.

[DrMatt]

I'm wary of reifying the category of True Skeptic, because if you're not careful, it begins to sound like a True Scotsman fallacy.

I'm not a theist in any sense because I would consider it unfair for me to create an exception--any exception--to the evidential criteria which I apply everywhere else.

I also don't believe in talent, giftedness, IQ, or the primacy of communication in art. I'm aware that people have different abilities, but I don't see any evidence that a) Intelligence as a measure of fitness for any particular task has been adequately defined to be objectively measured, yet, b) that specific skills are given to people as gifts from an intelligent world-designer; c) that skills in culturally-defined fields like music have ever appeared full-blown in a newborn without acculturation and education (remember, Mozart's dad was a stern pedagog). And I've seen lots of art which many people value without having the slightest notion what it "meant" to its creators (the music of Mozart comes to mind--anybody here been around since the late 18th century?). In many places, I've seen a quote from Borges to the effect that certain experiences seem to cause people to feel like a profound epiphany is about to reach them, which, however, never happens---he suggests that this might be the core of the aesthetic experience. That's not just surrealistic writing, it's remarkably close to my hunch that "profundity" in art is an illusion, similar to the illusion that King Lear lives briefly on the stage or that Randi makes a packet of AA batteries disappear into thin air.

Being skeptical in this way does not make life any less colorful or exciting for me. I say "wow" just as much as anybody else I've met.

Lots of others don't function the way I do. I'm not inclined to censor them or call them "false skeptics", but neither am I inclined to consider their beliefs more credible because they believe them. On topics of the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and supernatural, I haven't seen Mr Bidlack's opinions--except for the single opinion of a vaguely-understood prime creator, a notion which sounds completely supernatural and untestable to me. As far as I know, Bidlack and I may agree on how to approach any other supernatural claim. Ben Franklin is reputed to have written: "Beer is proof that God wants us to be happy." To me, that sounds like satire of similar "proofs" from Puritanism, but it also demonstrates that the values which some people associate with Deism may be mostly congruent with the values which I've developed without such beliefs.

Sometimes, for being the way I am, I get called "fundamentalist". This seems particularly strange to me. The term "fundamentalist" has been used by people to describe themselves when they are absolutely certain that they are without error. I arrive at my incredulity largely because I'm not at all certain that anything I know is without error. This uncertainty doesn't paralyze me, it just means that whatever I do might be based on a mistake. I live, I make mistakes, I try to learn from them, and life so far has offered me lots of experiences that make me say "wow". I know of no fundamentalist who operates this way. It seems like the whole point of fundamentalism is to feel, once and for all, like one is error-free and needn't ponder or wonder about what to do. I can see the emotional appeal of such a feeling, but I don't see that it's justified. So I don't think that I have any of the characteristics of a fundamentalist.

But then, what do I know?

[Soapy Sam]

I never have actually encountered anyone using the term "fundamentalist" of himself. It seems usually to be a (critical) label applied by a more "enlightened" critic.
As the original No' True Scotsman and illogical negativist philosopher, I have suggested in another thread on this topic that it is unfair to expect absolute consistency of any single aspect of personality, including scepticism.
I'm not supporting Hal's faith, which I do not share. Like other believers I know, he seems like a rational sort of chap and would doubtless have dropped it if it served no useful purpose to him, or clashed strongly with the rest of his thinking, which clearly is of a sceptical nature. I would suggest that we all harbour similarly irrational or untested views. (Whether true or false is unimportant). They may be much less obvious than religious faith. They may lie in areas of politics, morals or economics.
Can I ask people posting here to examine their own belief systems for cracks and point out any they find. I think this might be instructive.

[william1165]

I can't answer for Hal, but I share his beliefs. If HE doesn't answer here, allow me to to answer your questions for ME.

Originally posted by kourama
You mention that you believe in a god. Why not 2, or 4 or 13.72 gods? Leaving aside any argument over what the definition of a deity is exactly, you are stating that you have a belief in something for which there is no evidence.


In my belief system there is but one God. In all religions that I'm aware of, even if there is more than one, there is still one God above them all. My belief is that this is the same God.

Can I prove this? No. It is just my belief.

Further, you mention that you pray. ... How do you know it hears your prayers? How do you know your prayers have any effect?


I do not KNOW He hears my prayers. I do not KNOW my prayers have any effect. I do not KNOW that if I hadn't prayed, things would have turned out differently. I only hope that it was because of my faith. Praying for healing is a specific use. But the doctors with all their science can only do so much. I pray for healing, and God "works" through the doctors to help. My mom lived for 6 years (and I mean LIVED!) when she should have died during heart surgery. I believe our prayers "helped."

Can I prove this? No. It is just my belief.

So, if you are willing to accept that your belief is irrational, then you are still worthy, in my opinion, of the title of "pure skeptic".

But, are you making that admission? The article on Friday certainly doesn't make it seem that way, in fact, you wrote "I believe strongly that you can believe strongly in both God and skepticism". If not, then you must explain how your belief is rational, or at least not irrational. Your strong belief must be backed up by strong evidence and/or a strong argument.

There is one sentence that seems like a ray of light here "So I am not completely consistent in my thinking, perhaps." It seems you are taking the first steps toward atheism, which is an admission that things don't quite make sense when you put a god in your universe.


I may be irrational. I am a skeptic on certain things such as Popoff, Brown, and Edward. I went to see John Edward in person one time to see what his game was. Interestingly, he had a reading that was dead-on for my wife. Unfortunately, he was working with the lady 10 rows back. I went in skeptical. I came out positive--he's a fraud.

I personally don't want the title "pure skeptic", as to me it connotes a required cynicism with life. I would rather appreciate the wonder of some things rather than try to explain EVERYTHING away.

To me, things don't make sense when I take God OUT of my universe.

Can I prove this? No. It is just my belief.

In my less mature days, I looked down upon people who believed in deities with disdain. My experience with religion has made me less than fair on the subject on too many occasions. I have since learned that you can be a logical, intelligent person and hold irrational beliefs at the same time. You are proof that it is still possible to be a skeptic, but a "true skeptic" must apply his skepticism even, no, especially, to his most cherished beliefs.


I have applied my skepticism to my beliefs. And my beliefs have changed as I have grown. As I understood the science behind life, certain things I've been taught (in my Catholic education) didn't make sense. I had to look at what I believed in. Some things I have given up on (e.g, Adam and Eve). Others still fit within the realm of defined science.

Can I prove ANY of this? No. It is just my belief.


William

[kourama]

Originally posted by william1165
I can't answer for Hal, but I share his beliefs. If HE doesn't answer here, allow me to to answer your questions for ME.

SNIPPITY-DOO-DAH

Can I prove ANY of this? No. It is just my belief.


William

Thanks William, but lemme ask this: do you concede that your belief in a deity, which remains undefended in your reply, is, from a skeptical point of view, undefendable, and hence irrational?

P.S. - I would never ask for proof in anything outside of liquor and logic - just evidence and a theory.

P.P.S. - A friend of mine pointed out a completely irrational belief of mine the other day which I've since re-considered and filed under "not sure" - see? It's not so hard!

EDIT:

P.P.P.S. - :g/undefendable/s//indefensable/g
(hmmm vi humour...to esoteric?)

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I never have actually encountered anyone using the term "fundamentalist" of himself. It seems usually to be a (critical) label applied by a more "enlightened" critic.


Jed Smock proclaims himself fundamentalist. The folks who came out to razz the Godless Americans March On Washington proclaimed themselves fundamentalists. Fundmamentalism is seen by its proponents as a positive thing, a "getting back to basics". That they seem to be using their fundaments for brains doesn't seem to faze them. I've never met a fundamentalist who was shy about claiming the label.

[william1165]

Originally posted by kourama


Thanks William, but lemme ask this: do you concede that your belief in a deity, which remains undefended in your reply, is, from a skeptical point of view, indefensible, and hence irrational?

Lemme answer it this way. I do not believe indefensible necessarily equates to irrational. I believe I am quite rational in my belief system, no matter how indefensible it is to you. It is quite complex, but it starts on one "leap of faith". Most religions, no matter what they believe in, are rational, but start with a leap of faith. My interest when studying other religions is to find that first step. Then when I discuss the beliefs with the believer, it makes sense to me why they believe that way. You can hardly find a flaw in their logic after that point, thus it is not irrational.

William

[hal bidlack]

Sorry to be slow in responding, I have been away for a few days. Also, with a great deal going on right now, my posts in general may be few and far between, my apologies.

Simply put, I readily, immediately, and completely agree that my deism is irrational, illogical, and unscientific. It is also untestable, which is why I reject the "if he's a deist, it's only a short trip down the slippery slope to astrology and UFOs" Those things *are* testable.

I don't believe God replies to my prayers, have no clue if they are even heard. Perhaps they are just a form of meditation, a conversation with myself. I can't really know. I pray often for the resolution of our family medical situation, but my intellect tells me that such an act will not help.

I plead guilty to not being 100% consistant in my thinking, but I reject the assertion that my lack of "skeptical purity" renders me unable to provide any service to the skeptical community. Shucks, turns out I'm a flawed, imperfect human. :)

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Sorry to be slow in responding, I have been away for a few days. Also, with a great deal going on right now, my posts in general may be few and far between, my apologies.

Simply put, I readily, immediately, and completely agree that my deism is irrational, illogical, and unscientific. It is also untestable, which is why I reject the "if he's a deist, it's only a short trip down the slippery slope to astrology and UFOs" Those things *are* testable.

I don't believe God replies to my prayers, have no clue if they are even heard. Perhaps they are just a form of meditation, a conversation with myself. I can't really know. I pray often for the resolution of our family medical situation, but my intellect tells me that such an act will not help.

I plead guilty to not being 100% consistant in my thinking, but I reject the assertion that my lack of "skeptical purity" renders me unable to provide any service to the skeptical community. Shucks, turns out I'm a flawed, imperfect human. :)

I am going to analyze this tomorrow.

[DrMatt]

I've skimmed a bit of Deist literature. It strikes me that most versions of Deism are very carefully constructed so that the existence or non-existence of God has no detectable effect on the universe. Some versions simply equate God with the universe itself--in which case, I'm hard put to see that it's categorically different from the usual sort of anthropomorphism that we see in many pagan religions.

On the one hand, the alleged existence of an X which has no possible way of being detected is a nice way to avoid the sort of tests which skeptics like to apply to claims.

On the other hand, it seems to me to be a really empty concept, categorically different from e.g. the concept of the utility of physics to real-world engineering problems on earth. The only statements I've heard attempting to refute this address the alleged utility of the acts of believing and praying, not the belief itself.

[Dub]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Sorry to be slow in responding, I have been away for a few days. Also, with a great deal going on right now, my posts in general may be few and far between, my apologies.

Simply put, I readily, immediately, and completely agree that my deism is irrational, illogical, and unscientific. It is also untestable, which is why I reject the "if he's a deist, it's only a short trip down the slippery slope to astrology and UFOs" Those things *are* testable.

I don't believe God replies to my prayers, have no clue if they are even heard. Perhaps they are just a form of meditation, a conversation with myself. I can't really know. I pray often for the resolution of our family medical situation, but my intellect tells me that such an act will not help.

I plead guilty to not being 100% consistant in my thinking, but I reject the assertion that my lack of "skeptical purity" renders me unable to provide any service to the skeptical community. Shucks, turns out I'm a flawed, imperfect human. :)

So as long as something is not testable, you can believe in it and still be a skeptic? Many crazy claims are untestable. I could claim:- I have been abducted by aliens and that I can some times talk to them - by closing my eyes, putting my hands together and talking quietly. The dont always hear me, but i feel that some times they do and they respond. I believe that I have been re-incarnated several times but i have no memory of my other lives. I believe conciousness comes from the astral plane and not from our brains - they are just the filter for the astral plane. I also believe that Hitler was actually a vampire.

Am I still a skeptic?

[Dub]

Originally posted by kourama


Hmm, I responded to this, but the site went a bit wonky. My response basically was:

Rational fear: being a soldier on the front line of a battle
Irrational fear: fear of flying over driving when you know flying is safer.

The licorice example probably was a poor one, though.

I would still say however, that phobias, such as the fear of flying, have a rational basis. While conciously someone that is afraid of flying tells themselves that it is safer than driving, there are many other aspects that can create the fear. In my mother's case it comes from claustrophobia, a fear of heights, fear of speed and a sense of not being in control. There's also the point that, no matter what the statistics show, alot of car crashes are survivable, whereas alot of plane crashes arent. Plane crashes are also more dramatic than most car crahses. Im not afraid of flying btw, just trying to show that, as I believe, it and most phobias are not irrational.

[william1165]

Originally posted by Dub


I could claim:- I have been abducted by aliens and that I can some times talk to them - by closing my eyes, putting my hands together and talking quietly. The dont always hear me, but i feel that some times they do and they respond. I believe that I have been re-incarnated several times but i have no memory of my other lives. I believe conciousness comes from the astral plane and not from our brains - they are just the filter for the astral plane. I also believe that Hitler was actually a vampire.

Am I still a skeptic?

Sure. Do you believe everything somebody else tells you, even if it doesn't fit with your Alienism belief system? If you question what somebody tells you as truth, even if you accept it in the end, you are a skeptic.

You can take that further and work to debunk what the believer has told you. Now you have to present the contrary evidence. You show, under proper observing conditions, this evidence in such a way that the believer has to re-evaluate their system. I've had that done to me many-a-times during my recovering Catholic days.

William

Dear Bidlack,

I personally have no problems with anybody praying. What follows is an argument that many skeptics could make against you, based on what I've observed on this board and others.

1. It is irrational to believe in a sky daddy, period.

2. It is irrational to believe in something you can't test.

3. It is irrational to pray if you don't believe anyone is listening.

4. You are delusional if you are having conversations with yourself.

5. You apply skepticism to all areas other than your belief doesn't make you a Real Skeptic.

6. Xpian fundamentalists are flawed, imperfect humans too.

Now, here is my rebuttal to all of these, how I would answer them (because I have somewhat similar beliefs as you Hal)

1. Fine, so sue me. I didn't say "sky", you did, and I didn't say "daddy", you did.

2. I can't test more things than I can test. I guess I am extra-super irrational then.

3. Not really.

4. That is what my friend Bob told me. (point to your shoulder)

5. Great!

6. You're not Greek!

:)

Sincerely,

S. H.

[Dub]

Originally posted by william1165


Sure. Do you believe everything somebody else tells you, even if it doesn't fit with your Alienism belief system? If you question what somebody tells you as truth, even if you accept it in the end, you are a skeptic.


According to your logic everyone is a skeptic!!???. I cant imagine there is anyone that believes every single thing that they hear or have been told (unless they have mental problems). So, there is no such thing as a non-skeptic??!

The point you have made means, infact, that every believer is by default a skeptic - as they have had to not accept as truth, any evidence or claims that run counter to their beliefs. So, a creationist who is told about evolution, which they dont accept as truth, is a sekptic - as they have questionned what is being told to them. This is clearly ridiculous.

The point being made is whether believers can be considered a true skeptic. I think not. Otherwise, like i said, everyone on the planet is a 'skeptic'. Should we have people like David Ike, Uri Geller, John Edward etc expounding the virtues of skepticism? After all, as long as there's something they dont believe in, they are skeptics.

[william1165]

Originally posted by Dub


The point you have made means, infact, that every believer is by default a skeptic - as they have had to not accept as truth, any evidence or claims that run counter to their beliefs. So, a creationist who is told about evolution, which they dont accept as truth, is a sekptic - as they have questionned what is being told to them. This is clearly ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous. Creationists do not believe in science any more than you believe in God. They are skeptical of Darwin's findings and choose to reject them.

Your definition of a skeptic is one-sided. Do you adopt the reasoning that anyone can be skeptical but you have to reject all that is unproven to be a skeptic?

William

[kourama]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Sorry to be slow in responding, I have been away for a few days. Also, with a great deal going on right now, my posts in general may be few and far between, my apologies.

Simply put, I readily, immediately, and completely agree that my deism is irrational, illogical, and unscientific. It is also untestable, which is why I reject the "if he's a deist, it's only a short trip down the slippery slope to astrology and UFOs" Those things *are* testable.

I don't believe God replies to my prayers, have no clue if they are even heard. Perhaps they are just a form of meditation, a conversation with myself. I can't really know. I pray often for the resolution of our family medical situation, but my intellect tells me that such an act will not help.

I plead guilty to not being 100% consistant in my thinking, but I reject the assertion that my lack of "skeptical purity" renders me unable to provide any service to the skeptical community. Shucks, turns out I'm a flawed, imperfect human. :)

Hal, thanks for responding.

It's not a great idea for a moderator to get involved in threads, so I don't expect a dialogue here.

I just wanted to point out that I didn't make the assertion that are unable to provide a service. Basically, you have a pet sacred cow, you admitted to it, and as far as I'm concerned your are definately on the good side.

The imperfect human bit sounds like something I wrote in another thread...hmmm...ESP? :D

There are a lot of points here, too many to comment on at the moment. I'll get back when I have time...

[Dub]

Originally posted by william1165


It is not ridiculous. Creationists do not believe in science any more than you believe in God. They are skeptical of Darwin's findings and choose to reject them.

Your definition of a skeptic is one-sided. Do you adopt the reasoning that anyone can be skeptical but you have to reject all that is unproven to be a skeptic?

William

My definition of 'a skeptic' is not 'anyone that happens to be able to be skeptical of something'. You seem to define skeptic as anyone that doent believe in everything they are told. Therefore, as you have stated, creationists are skeptics. So whats the point in even having the term skeptic? According to your definition it applies to everyone, and so is a meaningless definition. I define the term 'a skeptic' as someone that doesnt not believe in and question supernatural, paranormal, woo-woo beliefs. There is a big difference between being able to be skeptical about something and being 'a skeptic'.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by kourama

I am not saying that being a "pure skeptic" means being rational all the time about everything. I happen to like salted licorice for no rational reason, and I have heard that Isaac Asimov was afraid of flying and preferred to drive. The difference here is the acknowledgement of irrationality. I know perfectly well, as, no doubt, Asimov knew that these behaviours didn't have rational explanations. So, if you are willing to accept that your belief is irrational, then you are still worthy, in my opinion, of the title of "pure skeptic".

It seems to me that the meaning of the word "skeptic" is changing somehow. In various other threads I have read, and what kourama seems to be suggesting here, is that you can't be a "pure skeptic" unless you disbelieve in any phenomena or idea that lacks evidence that would be acceptable to scientific inquiry. According to the dictionary, being skeptical means that you have doubts about generally accepted beliefs. You can have doubts but still believe, right? And you don't need "evidence that would only hold up under rigourous scientific inquiry" to believe something is true.

Now take God for instance. We can't arrange a scientific test to determine if God exists. So to be a pure skeptic, we *must* disbelieve in God? That's not being skeptical, that's being dogmatic. In the case of many other types of widely held beliefs, we can actually put them to the test. "You say you can bend a spoon? Well, I doubt it, but here, why don't you go ahead and try?" We can find out if our skepticism (or belief therein) was warranted.

Being a skeptic means that you are doubtful about things. It does not mean "that which does not map to scientific inquiry is irrational or false."

Tim

[BillyJoe]

A sceptic:

Someone who does not believe unless there is evidence to support that belief.
The degree of belief then corresponds to the degree of evidence for that belief.

Therefore you cannot be both a sceptic and a deist unless
1. You have evidence for the existence of God.
2. You disagree with the definition

Hal agrees that there is no evidence for the existence of God, so he must have a different defintion for a sceptic.

regards,
BillyJoe

[woodguard]

One of the greats gifts a human has is to go beyond logic.

Did Columbus have proof the earth was round before it sailed. Science at the time told him it was flat.

I also thought a skeptic would not care either way until proof was given. And proof of god is not possible.

Logic would said a skeptic is agnostic ?

[padakr]

According to Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm)

skeptic
1 : an adherent or advocate of skepticism
2 : a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles

skepticism
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

atheist
one who denies the existence of God

Seems that a sceptic can say "There might be a god", as long as they don't claim "true knowledge". I see the word doubt used a lot in the definitions, but I don't see disbelief. An atheist denies, a skeptic doubts.

I don't see how anyone has to be a skeptic to be an atheist or to be an atheist to be a skeptic.

[hal bidlack]

There is a very simple explanation, I think...

Simply put, I'm not 100% consistant in my thinking.

My deist view is not, I say again NOT, based on logic and evidence, but on personal spiritual values. I have NO evidence of God's existance, but choose to believe. Why? Because I am inconsistent.

If your definition of skeptic requires that the person never, ever, not even once, have any non-evidence based opinion, well, I guess I fall short of your definition.

If, on the other hand, you accept that not all people are 100% consistant in their thinking, then maybe I am. Your choice. In the mean time, I shall continue to think of my self as a skeptic, with flaws like any human, but able to understand the vast, vast majority of skeptical issues from the perspective of a skeptic.

I firmly believe that religion and faith have nothing to do with nearly all claims for the Randi prize, though some claimants may try to bring it in. Either you can do the paranormal thing or you can't, period.

I believe in an untestable, non-evidence based thing. I readily admit it is illogical and unscientific. But it is also only one small area of what makes up my belief system. You have to decide, I guess, if such a failing damns me completely or not.:)

Originally posted by hal bidlack
There is a very simple explanation, I think...

Simply put, I'm not 100% consistant in my thinking.

My deist view is not, I say again NOT, based on logic and evidence, but on personal spiritual values. I have NO evidence of God's existance, but choose to believe. Why? Because I am inconsistent.

If your definition of skeptic requires that the person never, ever, not even once, have any non-evidence based opinion, well, I guess I fall short of your definition.

If, on the other hand, you accept that not all people are 100% consistant in their thinking, then maybe I am. Your choice. In the mean time, I shall continue to think of my self as a skeptic, with flaws like any human, but able to understand the vast, vast majority of skeptical issues from the perspective of a skeptic.

I firmly believe that religion and faith have nothing to do with nearly all claims for the Randi prize, though some claimants may try to bring it in. Either you can do the paranormal thing or you can't, period.

I believe in an untestable, non-evidence based thing. I readily admit it is illogical and unscientific. But it is also only one small area of what makes up my belief system. You have to decide, I guess, if such a failing damns me completely or not.:)

Dear Hal:

Are you an "inconsistent" true believer or an "inconsistent" skeptic?


Define yourself , please.



:) ex-latin :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
I have NO evidence of God's existance, but choose to believe. Why? Because I am inconsistent.


Why? Some people follow the same path as yours, just to be consistent to their needs...

Do I have to remind to the lovely company how much paper and ink has been consumed in analyzing this philosophical issue; The need of being consistent to our needs ? :)

[padakr]

ex-latin
Are you an "inconsistent" true believer or an "inconsistent" skeptic?

I don't recall Hal ever saying he was a "true believer".

[xouper]

Please pardon my departure from the main point while I address this particular question:

woodguard: Did Columbus have proof the earth was round before it sailed. Science at the time told him it was flat.Sorry, but that's false. Science had proof the world was round since before Christ. Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the Earth with amazing accuracy in the third century BC. Columbus, and everyone else of his day, did indeed have access to proof that the world was round. Any sailor worth his salt certainly knew it.

You may wish to choose different example next time. :)

[Rockon]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
A sceptic:
Someone who does not believe unless there is evidence to support that belief.

As Padkar pointed out, this is "BillyJoe's" definition, not the definition that exists in the dictionary. This is suggestive that you are actually defining a cult, and not a word.

Tim

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Sorry to be slow in responding, I have been away for a few days. Also, with a great deal going on right now, my posts in general may be few and far between, my apologies.

Simply put, I readily, immediately, and completely agree that my deism is irrational, illogical, and unscientific. It is also untestable, which is why I reject the "if he's a deist, it's only a short trip down the slippery slope to astrology and UFOs" Those things *are* testable.

I don't believe God replies to my prayers, have no clue if they are even heard. Perhaps they are just a form of meditation, a conversation with myself. I can't really know. I pray often for the resolution of our family medical situation, but my intellect tells me that such an act will not help.

I plead guilty to not being 100% consistant in my thinking, but I reject the assertion that my lack of "skeptical purity" renders me unable to provide any service to the skeptical community. Shucks, turns out I'm a flawed, imperfect human. :)

Wow, that's kind of interesting.

I suppose I can't fault you for it. Perhaps rationality will strike up eventually.

I wonder this: Is admitting an idea you hold is irrational an actual sign of rationality? It could be, depending on how exactly the mind works in this regard.

[woodguard]

Originally posted by xouper
Please pardon my departure from the main point while I address this particular question:

Sorry, but that's false. Science had proof the world was round since before Christ. Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the Earth with amazing accuracy in the third century BC. Columbus, and everyone else of his day, did indeed have access to proof that the world was round. Any sailor worth his salt certainly knew it.

You may wish to choose different example next time. :)


I double checked, your right.

TV lied to me again. And I saw it a Bugs Bunny and everything!

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Simply put, I readily, immediately, and completely agree that my deism is irrational, illogical, and unscientific. It is also untestable, which is why I reject the "if he's a deist, it's only a short trip down the slippery slope to astrology and UFOs" Those things *are* testable.Oh? If I say that I believe that pink winged aliens from zeta reticuli are responsible for thousands of deaths on earth every year, am I still a "pure skeptic"? After all, my belief cannot be tested.

(Sorry if someone else has already posted a similar reply)

[Rockon]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Oh? If I say that I believe that pink winged aliens from zeta reticuli are responsible for thousands of deaths on earth every year, am I still a "pure skeptic"? After all, my belief cannot be tested.

Originally posted by kourama
In my less mature days, I looked down upon people who believed in deities with disdain. My experience with religion has made me less than fair on the subject on too many occasions. I have since learned that you can be a logical, intelligent person and hold irrational beliefs at the same time. You are proof that it is still possible to be a skeptic, but a "true skeptic" must apply his skepticism even, no, especially, to his most cherished beliefs.
So now we have "skeptics" and "pure skeptics" and "true skeptics." Getting kinda complicated around here fellas. "...you must apply your skepticism...to your most cherished beliefs...." Or else what? You don't get to join the "true skeptics club?"

Heh. It's funny. Randi says that Hal is skeptical. Hal certainly *acts* skeptical. Buy you guys "cling to your most cherished belief" that he can't be a "real" skeptic, (oops, I'm sorry, I meant "pure" skeptic, no, that's not right, I meant "true" skeptic,) because he believes in God.

Pretty soon I suppose you'll start taking a collection to rid the world of "false skeptics." ;)

Tim

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Rockon

So now we have "skeptics" and "pure skeptics" and "true skeptics." Getting kinda complicated around here fellas. "...you must apply your skepticism...to your most cherished beliefs...." Or else what? You don't get to join the "true skeptics club?"I posted in another thread last week that there is no such thing as a "pure skeptic", so you can save the straw to build another man some other time. I used the term as a reference to Hal's own post, which talked about "skeptical purity".

My question is a valid one. Hal stated in his initial post in this thread that he was not on a "slippery slope" towards belief in (non-religious) woo-woo things since his belief is untestable, yet those woo-woo beliefs WERE testable. I gave an example of a woo-woo belief which was untestable.

The question, posed to Hal (since it was in response to his post, but feel free to respond if you'd like) was: If I had that belief, would I still be considered a skeptic / true skeptic / pure skeptic / whatever, as long as I didn't believe in any "testable" woo-woo beliefs?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by woodguard
One of the greats gifts a human has is to go beyond logic. You are probably referring to art, aesthetics, creativity etc. I would agree. But, altough going "beyond logic" might be a great gift, you should not lapse into illogic. Neither should you believe you have discovered Truth by any other means except logic and reason.

Originally posted by woodguard
Did Columbus have proof the earth was round before it sailed. Science at the time told him it was flat. I see xouper has alread covered this point

Originally posted by woodguard
I also thought a skeptic would not care either way until proof was given. And proof of god is not possible.Or more correctly, he won't take the notion of God into consideration until there is some evidence that God actually exists.

Originally posted by woodguard
Logic would said a skeptic is agnostic ? Yes, sceptic and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by padakr
According to Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm)

skeptic
1 : an adherent or advocate of skepticism
2 : a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles

skepticism
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

atheist
one who denies the existence of God

Seems that a sceptic can say "There might be a god", as long as they don't claim "true knowledge". I see the word doubt used a lot in the definitions, but I don't see disbelief. An atheist denies, a skeptic doubts.

I don't see how anyone has to be a skeptic to be an atheist or to be an atheist to be a skeptic. So much for dictionary definitions.

A sceptic does not "doubt".

To put it in a more positive light.....
A sceptic believes when there is evidence to support that belief and his belief is in proportion to that evidence.

[Win]

BJ:

You bogan. ;)

A few idle questions.

You are probably referring to art, aesthetics, creativity etc. I would agree. But, altough going "beyond logic" might be a great gift, you should not lapse into illogic. Neither should you believe you have discovered Truth by any other means except logic and reason.

Why shouldn't you?

Or more correctly, he won't take the notion of God into consideration until there is some evidence that God actually exists.

The "notion" of god?

And, what kind of "evidence?"

Frankly, you can be vexsome.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Rockon
As Padkar pointed out, this is "BillyJoe's" definition, not the definition that exists in the dictionary. This is suggestive that you are actually defining a cult, and not a word.:confused:

Rockon, define yourself in one word.
Now look up that word in the dictionary.
Recognize yourself?.....thought not!

[BillyJoe]

Win,
(sorry, I didn't see your post between my last two)

Originally posted by Win
BJ: You bogan. ;) Ah, I know. This is not a compliment.

Originally posted by Win
A few idle questions. ....deserve a few idle answers.....

Originally posted by Win
Why shouldn't you [believe you have discovered Truth by any other means except logic and reason.]? Because.
Okay......because any other means is unreliable.

Originally posted by Win
The "notion" of god? Delete. Substitute "God".

Originally posted by Win
And, what kind of "evidence?"Scientific.

Originally posted by Win
Frankly, you can be vexsome. Nope. Still not in the dictionary.

regards,
BillyJoe.
(thinking woodguard was going to respond to my post)

[Win]

BJ:

Okay......because any other means is unreliable.

So, logic and reason provide the only reliable means to ascertain the truth of a given proposition.

What do you mean by "reliable?" And how is it that any other method can be ruled out, a priori?

Delete. Substitute "God".

Fair enough.

Scientific.

Sorry. Still doesn't do it for me. What would constitute "evidence" of god's existence. For example, were a space-faring race to arrive at our doorstep tomorrow, saying, "of course god exists," would that constitute evidence.

Nope. Still not in the dictionary.

You're such a dictionary fanatic. Of course, you know exactly what I mean. Plus, the sound of [veksom] is more pleasing and accurate than the sound of [veksashus].

[william1165]

Originally posted by Rockon
Now take God for instance. We can't arrange a scientific test to determine if God exists. So to be a pure skeptic, we *must* disbelieve in God? That's not being skeptical, that's being dogmatic. In the case of many other types of widely held beliefs, we can actually put them to the test. "You say you can bend a spoon? Well, I doubt it, but here, why don't you go ahead and try?" We can find out if our skepticism (or belief therein) was warranted.

Being a skeptic means that you are doubtful about things. It does not mean "that which does not map to scientific inquiry is irrational or false."

Tim

Thank you, Tim.

I am a skeptic, I am skeptical, and I believe in all-powerful "creator", whom I call God.

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Simply put, I'm not 100% consistant in my thinking.

My deist view is not, I say again NOT, based on logic and evidence, but on personal spiritual values. I have NO evidence of God's existance, but choose to believe. Why? Because I am inconsistent.

If, on the other hand, you accept that not all people are 100% consistent in their thinking, then maybe I am. Your choice. In the mean time, I shall continue to think of my self as a skeptic, with flaws like any human, but able to understand the vast, vast majority of skeptical issues from the perspective of a skeptic.

I believe in an untestable, non-evidence based thing. I readily admit it is illogical and unscientific. But it is also only one small area of what makes up my belief system. You have to decide, I guess, if such a failing damns me completely or not.:)

Ok, Hal, here's where we disagree. I do not believe it is illogical to believe in God. Unscientific, yes, for the reason you state. I'm sure you are quite logical in your reasoning as to why you believe. I don't think you are being inconsistent, otherwise you would re-evaluate your belief system. Others may think you are being inconsistent, but only because they do not understand your entire belief system.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
A sceptic does not "doubt".

To put it in a more positive light.....
A sceptic believes when there is evidence to support that belief and his belief is in proportion to that evidence.

Not sure this makes sense. The skeptic looks for the evidence, and by so, has to leave "belief" out of it. I can be a skeptic and doubt, based on my established knowledge, but I have to ackowledge my beliefs. But there are those things which I know to be true, and those things which I believe to be true. I doubt those things that go against that which I know to be true, thus making me skeptical.

Yes, a belief system is complex, and if anyone wants to discuss mine, just e-mail me and we'll have a private conversation. I won't try to convert you, as long as you don't expect me to abandon my beliefs.

William

[Rockon]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
:confused:

Rockon, define yourself in one word.
Now look up that word in the dictionary.
Recognize yourself?.....thought not!
Actually, I do recognize myself: the word is skeptic.

Originally posted by BillyJoe
The question, posed to Hal (since it was in response to his post, but feel free to respond if you'd like) was: If I had that belief, would I still be considered a skeptic / true skeptic / pure skeptic / whatever, as long as I didn't believe in any "testable" woo-woo beliefs?
Sorry to intrude on the thread...thanks for letting me "belly up to the bar," so to speak.

The short answer (IMHO) is "yes, you can have a belief unsupported by scientific evidence and still be a skeptic." Just like you can be a Democrat even if you voted for George Bush in the last election.

Now, I'd be the first to admit that it might be somewhat unexpected or ironic for a skeptic to be religious or have a belief in God, but that doesn't make "skeptical deist" an oxymoron.

A more complete answer would involve the nature of the belief: Do you believe in that alien race simply because someone told you or were you influenced by other factors as well? Do you ignore any evidence to the contrary of that belief? Does your belief in that race follow a consistent pattern to your thinking and actions in terms of other beliefs you might hold? Are *all* your beliefs devoid of any skeptical inquiry at all? etc, etc.

Tim

Originally posted by padakr


I don't recall Hal ever saying he was a "true believer".

He told that he belief in God and pray...and also that he is ""inconsistent".

The question is :

Is Hal an inconsistent true believer or an inconsistent skeptic?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by william1165
-------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyJoe
A sceptic does not "doubt".

To put it in a more positive light.....
A sceptic believes when there is evidence to support that belief and his belief is in proportion to that evidence.
------------------------------------------
Not sure this makes sense. The skeptic looks for the evidence, and by so, has to leave "belief" out of it. No amount of evidence can never provide complete 100% certainty. Therefore "belief" does come into it. I think you are confusing "belief" with "blind belief". Certainly a sceptic has to leave "blind belief"out of it, "blind belief" being "belief" in the face of a complete lack of evidence for that "belief".

Originally posted by william1165
I can be a skeptic and doubt, based on my established knowledge, but I have to ackowledge my beliefs. But there are those things which I know to be true, and those things which I believe to be true. I doubt those things that go against that which I know to be true, thus making me skeptical. Which things do you know to be true?
Which things are completely 100% certain?

The accumulated evidence can cause you to doubt the truth of a certain proposition because it goes against this evidence. But, if a certain proposition does not go against the accmulated evidence, and, if there is also no evidence in favour of this proposition, then the sceptic does not take it into account - it remains irrelevant until such evidence becomes available.

The key word for a sceptic is evidence which is why the definition of a sceptic should revolve around this word. So I stick with my definition.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Rockon
------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyJoe

Rockon, define yourself in one word.
Now look up that word in the dictionary.
Recognize yourself?.....thought not!
-----------------------------------------------------

Actually, I do recognize myself: the word is skeptic. Fair enough. You are a dictionary quote :D

But seriously, that dictionary definition of "sceptic" is not correct.
I am quite confident that neither Randi nor Michael Shermer would accept that definition of their scepticism

Originally posted by Rockon
------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyJoe

The question, posed to Hal (since it was in response to his post, but feel free to respond if you'd like) was: If I had that belief, would I still be considered a skeptic / true skeptic / pure skeptic / whatever, as long as I didn't believe in any "testable" woo-woo beliefs?
----------------------------------------------------- You have attributed this quote to the wrong person.
It was posted by RSLancastr

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Win
So, logic and reason provide the only reliable means to ascertain the truth of a given proposition. Yes, I agree with you. :cool:

Originally posted by Win
What do you mean by "reliable?" Repeatability.

Originally posted by Win
And how is it that any other method can be ruled out, a priori?
"a priori"? Not supported by facts? Lacking in evidence?
Hmmm......I see a circular argument lurking.....and its about to hit someone in the face.....probably the non-philosopher amongst us.

Originally posted by Win
What would constitute "evidence" of god's existence. For example, were a space-faring race to arrive at our doorstep tomorrow, saying, "of course god exists," would that constitute evidence. No.

What would constitute "evidence" of god's existence?
Try me.

Originally posted by Win
You're such a dictionary fanatic. No.
Dictionaries are only guides.
Rarely can you understand the meaning of a word by looking up the dictionary

Originally posted by Win
Of course, you know exactly what I mean. Yes. I understand it is not a compliment.


Originally posted by Win
Plus, the sound of [veksom] is more pleasing and accurate than the sound of [veksashus]. I, of course, disagree. :cool:

[kourama]

On the surface of it, it seems that holding a belief that is untestable is not a barrior to ones overall ability to be a skeptic. That is, to follow the general rule that one's level of belief for something should be in proportion to the evidence for it.

In fact, holding the principle that belief builds on evidence is probably the most important part of being a "skeptic", even if it is not religiously applied in one's life.

I'm comfortable with Hal's position, since he sticks to testing the testable, and leaving the untestible as a matter of individual perference/need/weakness/whatever.

But, I think it is a little more difficult for some of us to have confidence in someone that holds an untestable belief. Popular delusions, like the existence of deities, tend to be judged less harshly than unpopular delusions, such as the "pink winged aliens from zeta reticuli".

So, for those who continue to hold that Hal is every bit as much a skeptic as he would otherwise be, without his belief in a deity, I must ask: If Hal believed, and I mean REALLY believed, that pink winged aliens from zeta reticuli are responsible for thousands of deaths on earth each year, would you still hold him in the same light?

I, personally, would think that there is probably something very wrong with him. So, do we classify acceptible and unacceptable beliefs, and if so, where do we draw the line? How do we decide what untestable beliefs someone is allowed to hold and not be considered worthy of a padded cell?

Does the existence of a deity seem more likely than winged aliens? To be honest, I think pink winged aliens are more likely to show up in our universe before deities.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by kourama
Popular delusions, like the existence of deities, tend to be judged less harshly than unpopular delusions, such as the "pink winged aliens from zeta reticuli".Mock the pink winged aliens at your own peril, sir! :)

So, for those who continue to hold that Hal is every bit as much a skeptic as he would otherwise be, without his belief in a deity, I must ask: If Hal believed, and I mean REALLY believed, that pink winged aliens from zeta reticuli are responsible for thousands of deaths on earth each year, would you still hold him in the same light?My question as well.

To be honest, I think pink winged aliens are more likely to show up in our universe before deities. And when they do, woe to the unbelievers! :D

It seems to come down to "socially/culturally acceptable delusions". But in the continuum of untestable beliefs (from mild to bizarre), the line where I would no longer consider a person a skeptic is obviously much lower than the line where I would say they need to be locked up.

[Dub]

Originally posted by kourama
On the surface of it, it seems that holding a belief that is untestable is not a barrior to ones overall ability to be a skeptic. That is, to follow the general rule that one's level of belief for something should be in proportion to the evidence for it.

In fact, holding the principle that belief builds on evidence is probably the most important part of being a "skeptic", even if it is not religiously applied in one's life.

I'm comfortable with Hal's position, since he sticks to testing the testable, and leaving the untestible as a matter of individual perference/need/weakness/whatever.

But, I think it is a little more difficult for some of us to have confidence in someone that holds an untestable belief. Popular delusions, like the existence of deities, tend to be judged less harshly than unpopular delusions, such as the "pink winged aliens from zeta reticuli".

So, for those who continue to hold that Hal is every bit as much a skeptic as he would otherwise be, without his belief in a deity, I must ask: If Hal believed, and I mean REALLY believed, that pink winged aliens from zeta reticuli are responsible for thousands of deaths on earth each year, would you still hold him in the same light?

I, personally, would think that there is probably something very wrong with him. So, do we classify acceptible and unacceptable beliefs, and if so, where do we draw the line? How do we decide what untestable beliefs someone is allowed to hold and not be considered worthy of a padded cell?

Does the existence of a deity seem more likely than winged aliens? To be honest, I think pink winged aliens are more likely to show up in our universe before deities.

I think the root of the problem is that religous/theistic belief have been around for so long that people take them for granted. That is, they see them in a different light to other irrational beliefs - purely because so many people believe in them. Imagine if there were no religous or theistic beliefs and then someone one day came out with the notion of God / Religion etc. Imagine how ridiculous it would sound. That person would be put straight into the same category as alien abductees and David Icke and his lizard people. The only difference is religion/theistic beliefs are more 'socially acceptable'.

Would it be acceptable for David Icke to work for JREF? If not why not? Whats the difference between believing in a man in the sky that created the Earth or Lizard people that did the same?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by kourama
On the surface of it, it seems that holding a belief that is untestable is not a barrior to ones overall ability to be a skeptic. I would add the qualifier "selective" to such a sceptic.

Originally posted by kourama
.....to be a skeptic......that is, to follow the general rule that one's level of belief for something should be in proportion to the evidence for it.....In fact, holding the principle that belief builds on evidence is probably the most important part of being a "skeptic"....... :) :) :)

Originally posted by kourama
I'm comfortable with Hal's position.....but, I think it is a little more difficult for some of us to have confidence in someone that holds an untestable belief. Yes, there must always be the risk that the untestable belief will take the lead role in that person's life and even further compromise his scepticism. Or alternatively that yet another untestable belief will take centre stage.......

Originally posted by kourama
So, for those who continue to hold that Hal is every bit as much a skeptic as he would otherwise be, without his belief in a deity, I must ask: If Hal believed, and I mean REALLY believed, that pink winged aliens from zeta reticuli are responsible for thousands of deaths on earth each year, would you still hold him in the same light?I guess taking on an untestable belief that millions of people the world over have taken on and that has been around for thousands of years would make you less "suspect" than someone who comes up with a crazy idea all on his own.

[BillyJoe]

Dear Mr. Randi,

It seems, from your recent commentaries that, although you do not believe in God yourself, you are supportive of Hal's belief in God. I presume you don't just mean you support his right to hold that view but that you think that holding such a view is entirely reasonable.

I wouldn't mind hearing from you what exactly you do support and your reasons for it

regards,
BillyJoe. :cool:

[hal bidlack]

Dear Mr. Randi,

It seems, from your recent commentaries that, although you do not believe in God yourself, you are supportive of Hal's belief in God. I presume you don't just mean you support his right to hold that view but that you think that holding such a view is entirely reasonable.

I wouldn't mind hearing from you what exactly you do support and your reasons for it

regards,
BillyJoe.


As Mr Randi only very rarely sees these fora, I'll be so bold as to put words in his mouth. I will immediately forward this text to him, and if I misstate, will correct at once.

With respect, BillyJoe, I don't think you state it correctly. I think it would be fairer to say that while Mr Randi would find my deism UNreasonable, he does not feel that that inconsistency alone renders a person fundamentally incapable of acting in a skeptical matter in other areas. Mr. Randi has stated his own atheism many times in many places. He is, I instantly admit, far more consistent in his belief system than I am in mine. This is yet another reason I feel so fortunate that this hero of mine allows me to call him friend.

Simply put, If I had a friend who was a good surgeon who also believed in the Loch Ness monster, that unusual belief would not invalidate his medical skills. I belief Mr. Randi feels that while he and I differ on issues of God, I can still be of service in the larger skeptical movement (though, perhaps I merit close watching? :))

But certainly, as many posters have pointed out, I want to be totally clear about my own belief system, so that you may have that information as you evaluate my actions and decisions on the forum.

So again, I was NOT saying that Mr. Randi feels deism, or any religious belief is rational, but rather that it is only part of a larger personal belief system, and therefore the wise person considers the totality of one's belief system in making an evaluation of their skeptical credentials.

[NiteOwl]

Jumping right in with both feet and looking for a fight let me say that I think those atheists who claim that you can’t be a deist and a skeptic are just plain silly. In point of fact, I might even go so far as to assert that the position that there is no God or deity of any kind is as unproven and incapable of proof as the claims of the most devout of evangelists.

I would say that the most intellectually honest position for a skeptic to take would be the agnostic one. However, both the atheist and the deist can offer up persuasive enough arguments that I can readily understand someone embracing either theory. Although, I think the deist may actually hold the edge in that debate.

“Why?” You ask.

Simple, the position of the atheist is typically justified by the utter lack of evidence for the existence of a god of any sort. (Let’s leave aside arguments over the definition of “god” for later arguments.) This is a fairly straightforward position, which on its surface seems fairly unassailable. However, if you poke at the skeptical atheist a little he’ll usually acknowledge that a lack of evidence doesn’t really prove that a god doesn’t exist, only that you cannot reliably assert that one does. Most atheists belief in a deity free world derives from the fact that, without evidence, they see no reason to favor the notion of deity over any other wildly implausible notion you might dream up. Now however, you walk perilously close to the position of the agnostic.

The deist on the other hand, does have at least some body of sound reason, supported by evidence to point to. With a tip of the hat towards Thomas Aquinas I would observe that although you cannot directly point at evidence of a god, you can infer from fairly solid evidence the presence of some vastly powerful agent quite beyond the scope of the observable universe.

The mere fact that I live to write this after a dazzlingly warm and pleasant day here in Washington compellingly demonstrates that the universe is not yet in a state of equilibrium. In any closed system, the total amount of entropy will tend to increase as the system moves towards a state of equilibrium. Thus though it was quite pleasant today, as the universe continues along, it will eventually assume an evenly distributed temperature, (which I hear will be quite cold) and become a dark silent stable place. What we call the heat death of the universe.

The fact that we’re not yet there would seem to indicate that at some point some agency opened the system and added an immense amount of energy, giving the universe all this enthalpy a tiny slice of which I enjoyed today as it radiated from our burning sun.

Now personally I find the notion that this tremendously powerful agency is a conscious patriarch with a nearly obsessive interest in my mating habits is a bit of a stretch. Hal however, made no such assertions either. If Hal wants to run with the theory that this agent is conscious and ordered the universe with a purpose, that’s seems to me as likely as the blind assertion that no such conscious agent can exist.

If someone tries to tell me that this agent not only talks to them but cures hemorrhoids, then I would say, “Oh yeah? Well let’s find some poor fellow with piles so you can show me.” Hal would too I suspect, and that, my friends, is what defines the skeptic. It is the insistence of proof whenever an issue is provable and a willingness to revise theories when the previously unknowable enters the grasp of human understanding.

So until you can explain the how’s why’s to the ordering of the universe, leave the poor deists alone. Besides, they might even be right.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by NiteOwl
Jumping right in with both feet and looking for a fight let me say that I think those atheists who claim that you can’t be a deist and a skeptic are just plain silly.Okay, what about us agnostics who say it?

[NiteOwl]

Okay, what about us agnostics who say it?

I’d say the agnostic who says it is more consistent than the atheist, but is still nitpicking. Further, I’d ask why the position of the deist disqualifies one for the title of skeptic but the position of the atheist does not. Neither assertion is really “provable”.

I would view the deist skeptic and the atheist skeptic alike; not as irrational, but more like a scientist who embraces a theory even if it hasn’t been irrefutably proven because they feel that it is the best explanation for the evidence that is currently available.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
As Mr Randi only very rarely sees these fora, I'll be so bold as to put words in his mouth. That's okay, I didn't really expect Mr. Randi to answer my question, so I am more than happy to receive a reply from your self. :)

Originally posted by hal bidlack
With respect, BillyJoe, I don't think you state it correctly. No, I didn't think so. That's what prompted me to ask the question. My impression from his recent commentaries ran counter to my previous impression of his views.

Originally posted by hal bidlack
I think it would be fairer to say that while Mr Randi would find my deism UNreasonable, he does not feel that that inconsistency alone renders a person fundamentally incapable of acting in a skeptical matter in other areas..... Yes, that gels more with my impression of Mr. Randi's views.

Originally posted by hal bidlack
[Mr. Randi is], I instantly admit, far more consistent in his belief system than I am in mine......I belief Mr. Randi feels that while he and I differ on issues of God, I can still be of service in the larger skeptical movement (though, perhaps I merit close watching? )That clarifies the situation for me.
Thank you, Hal, for taking the time to respond.

[EdwardG]

Originally posted by NiteOwl
I would say that the most intellectually honest position for a skeptic to take would be the agnostic one.[/B]

I agree, but let's talk about the utility of this position.

While it is conceivable that god exists, the issue has such little relevance to most peoples lives that despite their proclaimation of belief or disbelief, god may as well not exist.

OK, perhaps the theists act a little more like god exists than the atheists :)

But my point is that agnosticism may as well be atheism in so far as the impact it has on one's life. You don't see many agnostics constantly hedging their bets and offering up little prayers "just in case" - they act like atheists for the most part.

And in any case, both titles are so loaded with connotation that I suspect most people when pressed would want to qualify with their own thoughts and feelings.

[NiteOwl]

The deist could just as easily argue that atheists and agnostics tend to behave like them. After all who on a car trip at some point in their lives hasn’t found themselves silently pleading, “Please just make it to the gas station.” Or, “Please let that cop be chasing someone else.”

The deist could say that, despite your fervent belief that no one is listening, you still seem to pray with a fair regularity. So from a standpoint of the utility of how we live, we might as well all be deists.

Although you’re correct that it doesn’t really matter as far as the governing of your day to day activities. It does make a profound difference in how you shape your personal worldview and cosmology, which in turn lie at the very heart of what it is to be a skeptic.

[BillyJoe]

NiteOwl,

Originally posted by NiteOwl
.....I think those atheists who claim that you can't be a deist and a skeptic are just plain silly. Of course you can be but, as Hal says, it is irrational to be both a deist and a sceptic.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
In point of fact, I might even go so far as to assert that the position that there is no God or deity of any kind is as unproven and incapable of proof......I would say that the most intellectually honest position for a skeptic to take would be the agnostic one. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
If you do not hold a belief that God exists you are an atheist (by definition)
If you believe that the existence of God is "incapable of proof", then your are agnostic about God (by definition)
So you can be both atheistic and agnostic

Originally posted by NiteOwl
.....the atheist is typically justified by the utter lack of evidence for the existence of a god of any sort.....This is a fairly straightforward position, which on its surface seems fairly unassailable.....Okay so far.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
However, if you poke at the skeptical atheist a little he'll usually acknowledge that a lack of evidence doesn't really prove that a god doesn't exist, only that you cannot reliably assert that one does. Mostly you won't need to poke him a little, he'll acknowledge it right up front.....but let's press on.....

Originally posted by NiteOwl
Most atheists belief in a deity free world derives from the fact that, without evidence, they see no reason to favor the notion of deity over any other wildly implausible notion you might dream up. Now however, you walk perilously close to the position of the agnostic. As I say, the atheistic and agnostic positions are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
The deist on the other hand, does have at least some body of sound reason, supported by evidence to point to. With a tip of the hat towards Thomas Aquinas I would observe that although you cannot directly point at evidence of a god, you can infer from fairly solid evidence the presence of some vastly powerful agent quite beyond the scope of the observable universe.Unfortunately, though, you now have a "vastly powerful agent" to account for instead of "the observable universe".
How exactly is your position advanced?

Originally posted by NiteOwl
.....In any closed system, the total amount of entropy will tend to increase as the system moves towards a state of equilibrium.....as the universe continues along, it will eventually assume an evenly distributed temperature..... What we call the heat death of the universe.

The fact that we're not yet there would seem to indicate that at some point some agency opened the system and added an immense amount of energy, giving the universe all this enthalpy. But the total amount of energy in the system is and always has been zero.
Energy and mass are equivalent and mass (positive energy) always has gravitation (negative energy) associated with it. The total is always zero.
(That is my understanding at least)
A quantum fluctuation started off the whole shebang. There remains the problem of the potential for a quantum fluctuation before the quantum fluctation actually occurred. In other words, why was there anything at all? (Of course some deny this is a legitimate question.)
But when the alternative is a "vastly powerful agent"........

Originally posted by NiteOwl
If Hal wants to run with the theory that this agent is conscious and ordered the universe with a purpose, that's seems to me as likely as the blind assertion that no such conscious agent can exist.Except that those who believe in this conscious agent will need to explain how this conscious agent came to exist.
In other words, positing this conscious agent has no explanatory power. As such it needs to be sliced off with your ockham's razor.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
.....and that, my friends, is what defines the skeptic. It is the insistence of proof whenever an issue is provable and a willingness to revise theories when the previously unknowable enters the grasp of human understanding. .....and to ignore as irrelevant all those things, like faeries, pink unicorns and gods, for which there is no evidence.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
So until you can explain the how's why's to the ordering of the universe, leave the poor deists alone. Besides, they might even be right. He indeed might be right but his view cuts no ice unless and untill he provides the evidence.
In the mean time, the rest of us are happy to say "I don't know" and deal with what we do know to find out what we do not know.

regards,
BillyJoe

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
If you do not hold a belief that God exists you are an atheist (by definition)
If you believe that the existence of God is "incapable of proof", then your are agnostic about God (by definition)
So you can be both atheistic and agnosticI disagree.

An agnostic says that we cannot know either way. An atheist claims to know.

Originally posted by hal bidlack



So again, I was NOT saying that Mr. Randi feels deism, or any religious belief is rational, but rather that it is only part of a larger personal belief system, and therefore the wise person considers the totality of one's belief system in making an evaluation of their skeptical credentials.

Hal:

Are you:
1.- A inconsistent deism?
2.- A inconsistent believer?
3.- A inconsistent skeptic?

[NiteOwl]

Originally posted by BillyJoe

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
If you do not hold a belief that God exists you are an atheist (by definition)
If you believe that the existence of God is "incapable of proof", then your are agnostic about God (by definition)
So you can be both atheistic and agnostic

Here I think we’re running into differences in definition. When I say atheism, I’m referring specifically to those who state with some conviction that there is no god of any sort. This is a positive claim like saying there is no cat in a particular box. I make this distinction because by your reasoning, all agnostics are atheists. We then need a new word to distinguish between those who see no evidence for or against the notion of deity and thus remain uncommitted, and those who positively assert that there is no deity at all. To simplify matters and for the sake of precision I choose to simply use the narrower definition of atheist. In hindsight I probably should have defined my terms at the outset, as these are distinctions that often get blurry.


Originally posted by BillyJoe

Unfortunately, though, you now have a "vastly powerful agent" to account for instead of "the observable universe".
How exactly is your position advanced?

Firstly you needn’t get so wary of the term “vastly powerful agent”. I meant it in the same way that you could say that gravity it the vastly powerful agent that keeps the planets moving in ellipses around the sun. It was not intended to imply that such an agent by necessity was sentient only that the laws governing the working of the observable universe as we currently understand them would seem to necessitate some force from outside the scope of our currently observable universe to initially set things in motion.

Originally posted by BillyJoe

But the total amount of energy in the system is and always has been zero.
Energy and mass are equivalent and mass (positive energy) always has gravitation (negative energy) associated with it. The total is always zero.
(That is my understanding at least)
A quantum fluctuation started off the whole shebang. There remains the problem of the potential for a quantum fluctuation before the quantum fluctuation actually occurred. In other words, why was there anything at all? (Of course some deny this is a legitimate question.)
But when the alternative is a "vastly powerful agent"........

Please tell me you did not just invoke the phrase “quantum fluctuation” to explain to me why you believe the universe is an immense free energy machine. Isn’t that the same principle that Mr. Bearden’s machines run on? Of course, that does make a strange sort of sense since the total entropy in Mr. Bearden’s universe, seems to spontaneously decrease all the time.:p

Seriously though, my point was not the universe isn’t a zero sum game now. Only that the laws of thermal dynamics, as we currently understand them, should have precluded the possibility of a big bang with a long period of burning stars and rapid expansion absent something adding energy to the system. If as you assert, all energy in the universe is offset by an equal magnitude of gravitation the result should have been an endless equilibrium. A tiny unimaginably dense and massive point containing all the energy in the universe, constrained by it’s own gravity, unable to expand or contract one iota unless something gave it a nudge.

Deists like to call the nudger God; agnostics shrug and tell you they have no idea what the nudger might be; and atheists invoke phrases like quantum fluctuation without trying to explain precisely what quanta of energy they’re talking about or troubling to explain how or why it started to fluctuate. Some even go so far as to deny that it’s a legitimate question. My question is why don’t you give the atheists the same sound slapping around that you give the deists?

This year the may issue of Scientific American contains a lengthy article on parallel universes. They run through four different types of parallel universe and talk of how very elegantly these universes fit mathematical models based on experimental data from this universe. No one would call someone irrational who says he chooses to believe in one or more of these models for parallel universes because it seems to him the most elegant and reasonable explanation given the information available. Yet in doing so he espouses to beliefs about things, which are by definition beyond the scope of our observable universe. (The article is available online at www.sciam.com (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000&pageNumber=1&catID=2 ) )

Why is the position of such an individual so very much more palatable than that of the deist who chooses to believe in God for the same reasons?

Originally posted by BillyJoe
He indeed might be right but his view cuts no ice unless and until he provides the evidence.
In the mean time, the rest of us are happy to say "I don't know" and deal with what we do know to find out what we do not know.

Except that the skeptical deist is not trying to cut ice, he’s building a cosmology from incomplete data. He just happens to feel that, the concept of deity seems the most elegant and reasonable theory to account for the data currently available. He may well be wrong, but his position doesn’t make him irrational.

We often deal with situations where scientists will advance opposing theories derived from differing interpretations of incomplete data. Just because one of them champions a position that later turn out to be wrong, doesn’t make him irrational. Not unless he continues to champion that position despite data to the contrary. The irrational scientist is the one who calls his ideological adversaries competence into question before all the data’s in.

The early atomists got a lot of kicking around too. What seemed at the time, a wildly unlikely worldview turns out to have been just remarkably insightful.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by BillyJoe

.....and to ignore as irrelevant all those things, like faeries, pink unicorns and gods, for which there is no evidence.


So I guess you don't believe there's intelligent life on other planets, eh?

No evidence, no belief, right?

Tim

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Rockon
So I guess you don't believe there's intelligent life on other planets, eh? There is sort of evidence for this but I am not sure how strong this evidence is.
There is intelligent life on this planet so, if there is another planet in the universe similar to ours, intelligent life could have evolved there as well. Many have argued the probabilities involved.
However, whether or not there is intelligent life on other planets, is irrelevant to me in the broad scheme of things at the present time. Not to say it's not an interesting diversion to think about.

Originally posted by Rockon
No evidence, no belief, right?Yes, Rockon, I agree with you. ;)

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by NiteOwl
Here I think we're running into differences in definition. When I say atheism, I'm referring specifically to those who state with some conviction that there is no god of any sort. Yes, I think you are right about differences in definitions.
By your definition of "atheism", I think it is safe to say there are no real atheists.
Consider......
1. Strong Atheist: Someone who believes that God does not exist.
2. Weak Atheist: Someone who does not believe that God exists.
I think you are using the first definition and I am using the second definition (at least "weak atheists exist ;) )

Originally posted by NiteOwl
.....by your reasoning, all agnostics are atheists. We then need a new word to distinguish between those who see no evidence for or against the notion of deity and thus remain uncommitted, and those who positively assert that there is no deity at all. How about.....

Gnostic Atheist: Someone who believes there is evidence that God does not exist.
Agnostic Atheist: Someone who believes there is no evidence that God exists and who therefore does not believe that God exists

(Gnostic means "knowable".
Agnostic means "unknowable".
So, someone who is gnostic about God believes that God is knowable and someone who is agnostic about God believes that God is unknowable)

Originally posted by NiteOwl
To simplify matters and for the sake of precision I choose to simply use the narrower definition of atheist. In hindsight I probably should have defined my terms at the outset, as these are distinctions that often get blurry. So, what do you think about the above definitions seeing as there are probably no real athesits by your definition.
(Note: these are not my definitions but definitions I have picked up on this board)

Originally posted by NiteOwl
Firstly you needn't get so wary of the term "vastly powerful agent". I meant it in the same way that you could say that gravity it the vastly powerful agent that keeps the planets moving in ellipses around the sun. It was not intended to imply that such an agent by necessity was sentient only that the laws governing the working of the observable universe as we currently understand them would seem to necessitate some force from outside the scope of our currently observable universe to initially set things in motion. Then I don't think you are talking about Deism - unless, of course we have another difference of definition.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
My question is why don't you give the atheists the same sound slapping around that you give the deists? I do - if we are talking about "atheist" by your definition (which is "strong atheist" or "gnostic atheist" by [my] definition).

Originally posted by NiteOwl
This year the may issue of Scientific American contains a lengthy article on parallel universes. They run through four different types of parallel universe and talk of how very elegantly these universes fit mathematical models based on experimental data from this universe. No one would call someone irrational who says he chooses to believe in one or more of these models for parallel universes because it seems to him the most elegant and reasonable explanation given the information available. Yet in doing so he espouses to beliefs about things, which are by definition beyond the scope of our observable universe.If he "chooses to believe" despite the lack of evidence, he is irrational.
If he says that, yes, there is no evidence for any of the models but he would prefer that a particular model was true because it seems the most elegant and he likes beautiful models (who doesn't), I see no argument. He is talking art, not science, and admitting as much.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
Why is the position of such an individual so very much more palatable than that of the deist who chooses to believe in God for the same reasons? It isn't. They are both irrational

Originally posted by NiteOwl
Except that the skeptical deist is not trying to cut ice, he's building a cosmology from incomplete data. He just happens to feel that, the concept of deity seems the most elegant and reasonable theory to account for the data currently available. He may well be wrong, but his position doesn't make him irrational.If there is no evidence on which to base his belief, then he is irrational. If it's an aesthetic thing, then he is not talking science and I would just have to say that I don't share his aesthetics.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
We often deal with situations where scientists will advance opposing theories derived from differing interpretations of incomplete data. Just because one of them champions a position that later turn out to be wrong, doesn't make him irrational. Not unless he continues to champion that position despite data to the contrary. These scientists are developing theories based on the available evidence, producing testable hypotheses which, if not able to be falsified empirically, will become part of science.
If they produce theories not based on the available evidence - such as a belief in God - then they are irrational.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
The early atomists got a lot of kicking around too. What seemed at the time, a wildly unlikely worldview turns out to have been just remarkably insightful. Because it was not based on any evidence. They weren't "remarkably insightful" just "very lucky". The fact that they turned out to be correct doesn't change that. Continental Drift was also rejected initially, and rightly so, because there was no evidence or mechanism to support such a theory. It was a lucky guess that turned out to be correct. However, almost always, when a theory is not based on any evidence, it nearly always turns out to be wrong.

regards,
BillyJoe.
[I have not had time to edit this reply. Sorry for any errors]

(27th May: edited to correct grammatical errors and add in left) out words

[kourama]

Niteowl : Your argument treads very closely to a god-of-the-gaps arguement. This "tremendously powerful agency" you mention may simply be a characteristic of the universe and not something worthy of worship.

You did say later that you weren't necessarily talking about a sentient thing, just something very powerful. A "nudger" as you put it. Still, this is an argument out of ignorance. We don't know what lead to the immence amount of stuff in our universe, and some undiscovered property of our observable universe may pull this rug out from under the deists.

As you mentioned, the Deists might be right, but I assert that if the Deists are correct in their belief that an agent that no longer interacts with the universe exists in some form, then its existence is irrelevant, by it's very nature (or super-nature, right?).

As far as atheists "knowing" gods do not exists, I have not encountered one prepared to make that statement. As with most things, it's a matter of degrees. I think the strongest position most atheists are prepared to take is that there are probably no gods, as far as they understand what a god might be.

In fact, if there is anyone out there who is prepared to state that they know gods don't exist, then please step forward and add your voice to the chorus/cacophony!

I get the impression that the "strong atheist" mentioned from time to time oin the forums is just a straw man. In consideration of that, I think that we should assume from this point forward that, unless stated otherwise, when we speak of an atheist, we are talking about the so-called "weak atheism", where no positive statement is made.

Is that alright with everyone?

Also, thanks Hal, for making time to add to this topic. :)

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by woodguard
One of the greats gifts a human has is to go beyond logic.

Did Columbus have proof the earth was round before it sailed. Science at the time told him it was flat.

I also thought a skeptic would not care either way until proof was given. And proof of god is not possible.

Logic would said a skeptic is agnostic ?

Evidence that the earth was round was found by the ancient Greeks. One of them used shadow sizes at noon in two different cities to measure the circumference of the earth--and got the right order of magnitude.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
I wonder this: Is admitting an idea you hold is irrational an actual sign of rationality? It could be, depending on how exactly the mind works in this regard.

I think we can agree that somebody who believes sentence S honestly asserts that S is true.

I do some things that have no rational explanation, like enjoy music, decline to eat meat, etc. But none of these things are beliefs, as far as I know.

If you take ritual behavior and mythological ideas out into the realm of aesthetics, e.g. by saying "I like God... and Harry Potter, too..." then the whole issue of belief needn't arise. For some people that may fulfill their irrational desires without coming into conflict with any of their rational thoughts. This finesse certainly works for me with music.

:cool:

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Win
So, logic and reason provide the only reliable means to ascertain the truth of a given proposition.

What do you mean by "reliable?" And how is it that any other method can be ruled out, a priori?


Logic and reason are the thinking processes--which must be combined with science, which is the data-collecting process. What makes science reliable is that its assertions are continually tested against reality and changed to fit reality. So, what we mean by "reliable" here is a track record of making truly accurate predictions--and of self-correction and improvement when predictions fail.

Untestable assertions generally fall into two categories: those which are currently impractical to test, which the scientific method holds at arms length as things to reconsider with some later technology; and those which are untestable by their very nature (like discussions of what's "outside the universe"), which the scientific method sets aside as not to be reconsidered.

Any other method can be ruled out, a priori, because for it to actually be other, it must lack those characteristics.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by NiteOwl
[B]Jumping right in with both feet and looking for a fight let me say that I think those atheists who claim that you can’t be a deist and a skeptic are just plain silly. In point of fact, I might even go so far as to assert that the position that there is no God or deity of any kind is as unproven and incapable of proof as the claims of the most devout of evangelists.
B]

To most atheists--and indeed to most theologians, atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, and to a large component of atheists, this lack of a belief is of the non-cognitivist type--the lack of belief begins with the realization that they cannot quite wrap their mind around the concept of "god" or have found all presentations of it to be self-contradictory, thus not the kind of thing on which a belief may be had either way (My understanding is that Randi uses "atheist" in this fashion but has not presented himself as a noncognitivist). People who actively "deny the existence of god" are a subclass of atheists, and my anecdotal experience leads me to suspect that they're a very small subclass.

Yes, I'm aware that some people use the word "agnosticism" for the general definition of atheism. Others use "agnosticism" the way it was originally used, for the notion "God is unknowable", a firmly-held belief mostly held by theists.

In any case, the fundamental characteristic of atheists is the absense of a belief--which is not the sort of thing that would benefit from proof. Atheism is thus not comparable to devoutness or fundamentalism.

However, a few folks on this board, confronted with these clarifications of the terms, have become all the more adamant at accusing all atheists of dogmaticism. I would just like to point out that if somebody does that, I do not find such arguments pursuasive.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by NiteOwl
The deist could just as easily argue that atheists and agnostics tend to behave like them. After all who on a car trip at some point in their lives hasn’t found themselves silently pleading, “Please just make it to the gas station.” Or, “Please let that cop be chasing someone else.”

Me for one. I've been in life-threatening situations and have never pleaded with an ineffable, sorry.

The deist could say that, despite your fervent belief that no one is listening, you still seem to pray with a fair regularity. So from a standpoint of the utility of how we live, we might as well all be deists.



I don't pray, sorry. I'm an atheist without any such fervent belief--I tend towards the noncognitivist direction myself.


Although you’re correct that it doesn’t really matter as far as the governing of your day to day activities. It does make a profound difference in how you shape your personal worldview and cosmology, which in turn lie at the very heart of what it is to be a skeptic.

In my experience, most theists are much more willing to submit their dignity to external authority than most atheists--and it seems that having such an authority in their lives is a long-term habit. Of course, this is just my anecdotal experience.

I also see a majority of theists taking on corrolary beliefs which have stupendous impacts on how they live their lives -- impacts which create great contrast with how atheists live their lives. In particular, the belief in life after death (if there were ever a concept ripe for noncognitivism, this is it!) seems to lead a lot of theists to live dreary existences in the hopes of a blissful afterlife. Some afterlife-believing people even deliberately seek death as martyrs. Paul Kurtz, when asked whether he would die for his atheism, is reported to have said "of course not, after all I could be wrong."

[DrMatt]

(script bug cleared here)

[xouper]

woodguard: Did Columbus have proof the earth was round before it sailed. Science at the time told him it was flat.

DrMatt: Evidence that the earth was round was found by the ancient Greeks. One of them used shadow sizes at noon in two different cities to measure the circumference of the earth--and got the right order of magnitude.Since you're the third person in this thread who has commented on this point, perhaps it's time to put this in a FAQ so we can just link to it whenever this particular Columbus myth pops up.

[EdwardG]

Originally posted by NiteOwl
The deist could just as easily argue that atheists and agnostics tend to behave like them. After all who on a car trip at some point in their lives hasn’t found themselves silently pleading, “Please just make it to the gas station.” Or, “Please let that cop be chasing someone else.”

This deist would be confusing the act of prayer - a petition made to a god - with desire or simple hope, in which a god does not necessarily figure.

And then worse, the deist would be drawing an irrelevant conclusion. If I was to "plead" that my car would make it to the gas station, my "pleading" would be made to the car or (more likely) to the circumstances, not to any god. Similarly with the cop.


The deist could say that, despite your fervent belief that no one is listening, you still seem to pray with a fair regularity. So from a standpoint of the utility of how we live, we might as well all be deists.


The deist could say that, but it would be an irrelevant conclusion drawn from an ad hoc interpretation of a hypothetical situation, and clearly mistaken.


It does make a profound difference in how you shape your personal worldview and cosmology, which in turn lie at the very heart of what it is to be a skeptic.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence - did you mean to use the word cosmology? I don't think that even the deists (or theists for that matter) would say that their belief/disbelief shapes their, er, cosmology (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cosmology), except perhaps in the most general sense.

In any case, I thought that the essence of being a skeptic was simply being skeptical.

[NiteOwl]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Yes, I think you are right about differences in definitions.
By your definition of "atheism", I think it is safe to say there are no real atheists.
Consider......
1. Strong Atheist: Someone who believes that God does not exist.
2. Weak Atheist: Someone who does not believe that God exists.
I think you are using the first definition and I am using the second definition (at least "weak atheists exist )

Firstly, strong atheists do exits. They’re mostly Raelians, giving money to cloniad, or affiliated with other UFO cults but they’re out there. I think we’re coming close to common ground here. We can make similar distinctions between deists as well. Consider…
1. Strong Deist: Someone who believes that God in some form exists.
2. Weak Deist: Someone who thinks God probably exists, but is willing to acknowledge that he could very well be wrong.

Would you be willing to consider that the weak deist may be at least as rational as the weak atheist who feels that God probably does not exist?

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Gnostic Atheist: Someone who believes there is evidence that God does not exist.
Agnostic Atheist: Someone who believes there is no evidence that God exists and who therefore does not believe that God exists
Sounds good to me, but I think we could take turns slapping the Gnostic Atheists around. :D

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Then I don't think you are talking about Deism - unless, of course we have another difference of definition.
Actually, I wasn’t specifically addressing deism there. I was simply trying to establish that reason would seem to indicate the presence of at least one thing beyond the scope of our observable universe. Since this thing is at present, unobservable by definition, all kinds of speculation about it’s nature and properties can be entertained. Although… Some probably shouldn’t.

Having established the presence of such a thing, does it then become irrational to find a model for this “thing” which you feel best fits the data available within the observable universe and then proclaim that you think this model is most likely to be correct? Do not only the parallel universe believer, but also the weak atheist who thinks there probably isn’t a God not do this very thing?

Originally posted by BillyJoe
These scientists are developing theories based on the available evidence, producing testable hypotheses which, if not able to be falsified empirically, will become part of science.
If they produce theories not based on the available evidence - such as a belief in God - then they are irrational.
Except they don’t always produce testable hypotheses, sometimes theories are just speculative explanations for a broad synthesis of data with may never be provable but which fit the model. For instance the Theory of universal gravitation is often illustrated with the phrase, “Pluck a tulip here on earth and it is felt at the furthest star.” The Theory goes that when you move a piece of mass it’s gravitational impact is felt immediately regardless of the intervening distance between any two bodies. This seems a very reasonable theory, and it certainly seems holds true between astrological bodies whose gravitational effects we can reliably measure. This assertion however will likely never be testable to the point of being factual. We can’t reliably monitor the gravitation of a tulip from four meters away, let alone four or four thousand light years.

Yet no one says the scientist is irrational for believing the Theory of universal gravitation. I would say the important point is not that the scientist believe it, but that he’s willing to stop believing it if one day someone demonstrates that gravity doesn’t actually work as a diminishing inverse square, but instead along some wildly complex algorithm that, while closely resembling and inverse square, does (eventually) fall to zero.

[NiteOwl]

Originally posted by kourama
Niteowl : Your argument treads very closely to a god-of-the-gaps arguement. This "tremendously powerful agency" you mention may simply be a characteristic of the universe and not something worthy of worship.
You are correct, and it wasn’t even accidental for the most part.:)

Originally posted by kourama
Niteowl : We don't know what lead to the immence amount of stuff in our universe, and some undiscovered property of our observable universe may pull this rug out from under the deists.
Right again, and I’ll personally help you slap around the strong and weak deists alike after said rug pulling.

Originally posted by kourama
As you mentioned, the Deists might be right, but I assert that if the Deists are correct in their belief that an agent that no longer interacts with the universe exists in some form, then its existence is irrelevant, by it's very nature (or super-nature, right?).
True, but it matters to the deists, and it seems to matter a great deal to all of you that it matters to them.

Originally posted by kourama
In fact, if there is anyone out there who is prepared to state that they know gods don't exist, then please step forward and add your voice to the chorus/cacophony!
I think they’re all busy with their cloned babies. Seriously though, my only point is that I think the weak deist is at least as rational as the weak atheist who says “God probably doesn’t exist.”

[NiteOwl]

Originally posted by DrMatt
To most atheists--and indeed to most theologians, atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, and to a large component of atheists, this lack of a belief is of the non-cognitivist type--the lack of belief begins with the realization that they cannot quite wrap their mind around the concept of "god" or have found all presentations of it to be self-contradictory, thus not the kind of thing on which a belief may be had either way (My understanding is that Randi uses "atheist" in this fashion but has not presented himself as a noncognitivist). People who actively "deny the existence of god" are a subclass of atheists, and my anecdotal experience leads me to suspect that they're a very small subclass.

Yes, I'm aware that some people use the word "agnosticism" for the general definition of atheism. Others use "agnosticism" the way it was originally used, for the notion "God is unknowable", a firmly-held belief mostly held by theists.

In any case, the fundamental characteristic of atheists is the absense of a belief--which is not the sort of thing that would benefit from proof. Atheism is thus not comparable to devoutness or fundamentalism.

However, a few folks on this board, confronted with these clarifications of the terms, have become all the more adamant at accusing all atheists of dogmaticism. I would just like to point out that if somebody does that, I do not find such arguments pursuasive.

Nite: “I think that particular horse is dead, Jim.”
Jim: “But it’s still moving!”
Nite: “That’s cause you’re still hitting it...” :rolleyes:

Originally posted by DrMatt
Me for one. I've been in life-threatening situations and have never pleaded with an ineffable, sorry.
I don't pray, sorry. I'm an atheist without any such fervent belief--I tend towards the noncognitivist direction myself.

First off, I don’t believe you. People think in language, and indulge self-talk all the time. While you may not have “plead with the ineffable” you almost certainly have had occasions where you started talking very fast and fervently about how you wanted things to turn out. I never said this was actually prayer, hence the phrase, “fervent belief that no one was listening”.

That post was a direct response to EdwardGs assertion that because to all outward appearance atheists and agnostics, (under my first definitions) behave and live their lives more or less the same, that they might as well be same.

My point was that, particularly for the purposes of this discussion, the motivating beliefs inside your head make a profound difference. I attempted to illustrate this by pointing out that the only real difference between prayer and self-talk is whether or not you think anyone might be listening.

Originally posted by DrMatt
In my experience, most theists are much more willing to submit their dignity to external authority than most atheists--and it seems that having such an authority in their lives is a long-term habit. Of course, this is just my anecdotal experience.

I also see a majority of theists taking on corrolary beliefs which have stupendous impacts on how they live their lives -- impacts which create great contrast with how atheists live their lives. In particular, the belief in life after death (if there were ever a concept ripe for noncognitivism, this is it!) seems to lead a lot of theists to live dreary existences in the hopes of a blissful afterlife. Some afterlife-believing people even deliberately seek death as martyrs. Paul Kurtz, when asked whether he would die for his atheism, is reported to have said "of course not, after all I could be wrong."

Let’s leave the anecdotal evidence out of this, for that way lies madness, crystals and free energy machines. Besides, I can point you to some mighty strange atheists out there.

I never even attempted to defend the rationality of those who handle rattlesnakes and drink arsenic to prove their faith and commune with God. This discussion has always been centered on the “skeptical deist”, or perhaps now more precisely defined, “weak deist” and whether or not such animals even exist.

[NiteOwl]

Originally posted by EdwardG
The deist could say that, but it would be an irrelevant conclusion drawn from an ad hoc interpretation of a hypothetical situation, and clearly mistaken.

As I was just telling Dr. Matt, that was precisely my point. What’s going on inside your head motivating your actions makes a difference. It’s the same with atheists and agnostics, (again of my original definition) though you’re correct that from a standpoint of utility they may well behave the same, for the purposes of our discussion it makes a profound difference. We left the realm of utility behind so long ago; I can barely remember the meaning of the word. (I’m only kidding no one need to define it for me please.)

Originally posted by EdwardG
I'm not sure I understand this sentence - did you mean to use the word cosmology? I don't think that even the deists (or theists for that matter) would say that their belief/disbelief shapes their, er, cosmology, except perhaps in the most general sense.

Nope, cosmology was the right word. The totality of the non-skeptic universe is often driven, not by any comprehensible laws or understandable properties, but by the indomitable will and defining word of vast and capricious deities, whose minions and enemies play out a cosmic melodrama with the lives of helpless humanity as their pawns.

The skeptic tends to doubt this model without some proof in the matter.

It seems a little extreme but someone who genuinely believes that their car may continue to run, by the will of god alone, when their tank is empty lives in a universe of profoundly different properties than the one I’ve come to know an love.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by NiteOwl
We can make similar distinctions between deists as well. ConsiderÂ…
1. Strong Deist: Someone who believes that God in some form exists.
2. Weak Deist: Someone who thinks God probably exists, but is willing to acknowledge that he could very well be wrong.

Would you be willing to consider that the weak deist may be at least as rational as the weak atheist who feels that God probably does not exist? Your definition of a "weak deist" doesn't sound similar to my definition of a "weak atheist" at all......

Weak Atheist: Someone who does not believe that God exists

A similar defintion would be.....

Weak Atheist: Someone who thinks God probably does not exist, but is willing to acknowledge that he could very well be wrong.

Can you see how different these two defintions are?
By the first definition, a "weak atheist" just doesn't believe in God - because there is no evidence to support that belief and he therefore regards the question of God as irrelevant.
By the second definition, a "weak atheist" seems to have weighed up the evidence for and against and, on balance, thinks God probably does not exist but can't be sure so the question of God remains relevant to him.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
Having established the presence of such a thing [a thing beyond the scope of our observable universe], does it then become irrational to find a model for this "thing" which you feel best fits the data available within the observable universe.....Yes. Because you have failed to recognise that any number of different models could "fit the available data". There is no "best fit" unless and until there is evidence to support a particular model in preference to all the other models.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
.....and then proclaim that you think this model is most likely to be correct? No. For that you need evidence.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
Do not.....the weak atheist who thinks there probably isn't a God not do this very thing? No. The "weak atheist" (my definition) regards the question of God as irrelevant from a scientific standpoint because of the complete lack of supporting evidence.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
Except they don't always produce testable hypotheses, sometimes theories are just speculative explanations for a broad synthesis of data with may never be provable but which fit the model. Well then they are just pure speculations. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you recognize your complete lack of evidence for your speculations (by definition) and as long as you do not afford them the same status as theories which have supporting evidence.

Speculations are just playing games and shouldn't be taken the least bit seriously.
Theories are deadly serious.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
For instance the Theory of universal gravitation is often illustrated with the phrase, "Pluck a tulip here on earth and it is felt at the furthest star." The Theory goes that when you move a piece of mass it's gravitational impact is felt immediately regardless of the intervening distance between any two bodies. This seems a very reasonable theory, and it certainly seems holds true between astrological bodies whose gravitational effects we can reliably measure. This assertion however will likely never be testable to the point of being factual. We can't reliably monitor the gravitation of a tulip from four meters away, let alone four or four thousand light years. [/B]Sorry, NiteOwl, gravity travels at the speed of light.
If the sun were to suddenly disappear, the Earth would continue revolving around it (as if the sun was still there) for another 8 minutes.

Originally posted by NiteOwl
Yet no one says the scientist is irrational for believing the Theory of universal gravitation. I would say the important point is not that the scientist believe it, but that he's willing to stop believing it if one day someone demonstrates that gravity doesn't actually work as a diminishing inverse square, but instead along some wildly complex algorithm that, while closely resembling and inverse square, does (eventually) fall to zero. But, in the mean time, there is evidence to support his theory. There is no evidence for God.

regards,
BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

originally posted by Mr. Randi
my contribution to this discussion: To make everything clear to all, I do not believe in any deities, ghosts, angels, demons, devils, goblins, banshees, Hell or Heaven, Purgatory, saints, imps, sprites, fairies, gnomes, bunyips, or bogey men. In that short list I've missed a lot of other things of which I doubt the existence, as I'm sure you can see. Add on Life-After-Death, Sylvia Browne, and perpetual motion. (Yes, I believe Sylvia exists, but not as she represents herself.) Note that I state I do not have a belief in these things, and the reason is that the supporting evidence offered for them, if any. is very, very, bad.Permit me to repeat that last bit with which I wholehartedly agree....

"I do not have a belief in these things, and the reason is that the supporting evidence offered for them, if any, is very, very, bad "

This is, of course, the definition of a sceptic.

originally posted by Mr. Randi
To have a statement from Hal Bidlack that he has a belief in a deity or some such similar entity, is quite different from hearing him say that he has any evidence for that belief. I have always recognized two kinds of faith, especially when asked (as I frequently am) "Mr. Randi, don't you have any faith?" I say that there are two kinds of faith: blind faith and evidenced faith. Blind faith is the basis for religion; that idea does not require anything but blind belief. Evidenced faith requires supporting evidence — and that's what I prefer to accept. Again permit me to repeat the last bit with which I also agree....

"Blind faith is the basis for religion; that idea does not require anything but blind belief. Evidenced faith requires supporting evidence — and that's what I prefer to accept."

Sceptics do have "belief" and "faith" but that "belief" and "faith" is evidence based.

originally posted by Mr. Randi
I have several friends who, like Hal, have a belief in a deity. They don't try to argue the matter with me, they simply state that preferred belief, and live with it.

Be aware that if anyone chooses to argue religion with me and says that he/she can prove their case, I enter that fray with arms flailing and loud battle cries. Still in agreement.

originally posted by Mr. Randi
But I respect anyone's preferred beliefs, because that's one right I deeply cherish here in this country. It's a right, and it's often a burden. Now this is where I have a problem with Mr. Randi.....

What is that basis of the "respect" he has for someone who believes in something for which he admits he has no evidence.
He might say "Well if he insists in believing irrationally in something for which he has no evidence, there's nothing I can do about it.
But what's the basis for this "respect"?

And is it really a burden?
What about the burden of atheism?

originally posted by Mr. Randi
I became a citizen of the USA back in 1987, for a specific reason. I was unhappy with several experiences I'd had back home in Canada, in relation to freedom of expression and freedom from unwarranted searches. I fiercely defend anyone's right to embrace a belief.But isn't that irrational?

Isn't it irrational to [fiercely] defend someone's "right" to believe in something for which he has no evidence.
And why would you say that someone has a "right" to believe in something for which he have no evidence. I mean, you may say that you have no choice but to live with the fact that someone irrationally believes in something for which he has no evidence. But why would you see it as a "right"?

Is Mr. Randi's position here based on his emotional response to the situation he mentions when back in Canada as well as perhaps his emotional attachment to Hal Bidlack?

originally posted by Mr. Randi
Mind you, I will enter into an argument if invited, in fact I've done just that many times; I never avoid that opportunity. Hal has a preferred belief. I do not share that belief. That's okay. The doctor with a bad haircut and a baggy polyester suit is probably just as good a doctor as the one with the $35 haircut and the Armani suit; however, I would not ask the former for fashion advice. The skeptic who thinks he was designed by some entity, is probably as good a skeptic as the one who thinks he exists as the result of a long process of trial-and-error; I would not ask the former for an opinion on cosmology — though I might expect him to have a viable opinion on income taxes and on baseball. Here Mr. Randi is saying that having a non evidence based belief in God is analogous to having no fashion sense but surely......hmmmm......on second thought.......:D

But seriously, is God just about aesthetics?
Is prefering to believe in God like prefering to dress smart (yeah, sorry, the analogy has got a bit twisted)

originally posted by Mr. Randi
Hal Bidlack is a prince. Not just a swell guy, a prince. He could make royalty respectable. Yes, we differ in some beliefs and in a basic aspect of philosophy, but he's no less a friend and a trusted advisor for that. Well I can't help liking the guy as well but....

"Hal Bidlack is a prince"??
"He could make royalty respectable"???

What exactly does this mean?

originally posted by Mr. Randi
There. I've had my say. And I'm still confused.

What I would like to know is this.....
Why would you consider it a "right" for someone to believe in God (with no evidence)?
Why would you feel it necessary to defend, even fiercely defend, someone's "right" to believe in God(with no evidence)?
And why on Earth would you "respect" someone's belief in God when he cannot offer, and even admits he cannot offer, any evidence for this belief.

regards,
BillyJoe.

[Globert]

[/QUOTE]
What I would like to know is this.....
Why would you consider it a "right" for someone to believe in God (with no evidence)?
Why would you feel it necessary to defend, even fiercely defend, someone's "right" to believe in God(with no evidence)?
And why on Earth would you "respect" someone's belief in God when he cannot offer, and even admits he cannot offer, any evidence for this belief.

regards,
BillyJoe. [/B][/QUOTE]

Earlier in Mr. Randi's post he said he moved to America (my italics). Defending someones right to hold a differing religeous veiw is inherently American. Printing your own different veiw is inherently American. We may never agree with whatever posit may be broached, but if the noise dies so goes us. And regardless of onesfaith , it's ones claims that are challenged. You may believe in god, but if you say god can make you fly don't be surprised you get accompanied to a cliff.:p

[Beanbag]

I sense a certain inadequacy of language here. There's a lot of back-and-forth concerning degrees of difference between athiests, strong athiests, weak athiests, and so on. I'm reminded by a comment made by a friend (one of those disgusting multi-talented individuals who, among other things, is fluent in both Greek and Latin, along with about six other languages) who attributes the split between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church to the fact that Latin isn't as fine an instrument for resolving issues when compared to Greek. The analogy he used is that while Latin might referr to a color as red, in Greek the color could be more tightly described as cerise, rose, coral, garnet, etc. When the Greek speakers started looking at what the Latins had to say in their discussions on religion, the Greeks felt that too many distinct, separate items were being lumped together as the same thing because Latin couldn't resolve the issues finely enough. The Latins assumed the Greeks were spending too much time arguing over differences that didn't exist, while the Greeks couldn't understand why the Latins just couldn't see what was obviously different to them. Some things just don't translate well, like the ad for a certain ball-point pen that -- when translated to Chinese -- promised clean genitals for the user (the mind boggles).

What I believe a skeptic to be is a person who bases their beliefs upon the evidence provided, based on their ability to understand and assimilate the evidences in the universe. Having limited time and a definite limit to my intellectual capacities, I doubt that I'll EVER be able to understand everything or take in all the evidence. I have to be choosey about what I hold as a given. Most of the time, my choices are a matter of immediacy -- the issues I have to deal with NOW tend to take precedence over the other remote, stratospheric considerations. It's the old adage that you need to deal with the fact that you're up to your ass in alligators before you can even begin to drain the swamp.

By my definition, a skeptical athiest and a skeptical agnostic are the same bird: if you can provide valid evidence for god, either will become a deist because there is evidence. An athiest or agnostic who blindly refuses to consider the evidence is just as closed-minded as a fundamentalist who flatly believes that the Bible or Koran is the last word on all matters, period.

I'm a skeptic by my definition, and at the moment I'm an athiest as well, because I see no evidence for the existence of deities. I've explained to deist friends that I believe in what I can see, and that I don't see what I believe. I keep my head up and eyes open, looking for evidence for gods, but so far nothing has come to me.

Whether the existence of god can be proven or disproven is a horse that's been pretty much thumped over, and generally considered unproveable either way. I've got more pressing concerns to deal with now, so I've back-burnered the matter, but I make a point to check out anything interesting that comes to light.

The common ground for a skeptical deist and a skeptical athiest is the willingness to consider evidence and draw their conclusions based on the facts. Where facts are not available, then you have to follow your hunches, which is nothing more than deciding what you think is likely. Occam's Razor actually shaves the deist point of view more cleanly than the athiest viewpoint. What could be a simpler explanation than "God did it" ? Comes across as much simpler than evolution, the Big Bang theory, quantum physics, etc.

Mr. Bidlak has stated that he believes in a supreme being or god. I can't prove him wrong; I don't think he can prove he's correct. But what I find most admirable about him is his ability to not let this fundamental, unresolveable disagreement become an obstacle to knowing and understanding those things that ARE knowable and testable.

Regards;
Beanbag

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Beanbag
What I believe a skeptic to be is a person who bases their beliefs upon the evidence provided..... .....and his belief to be in proportion to that evidence.

Originally posted by Beanbag
.....based on their ability to understand and assimilate the evidences in the universe. Having limited time and a definite limit to my intellectual capacities, I doubt that I'll EVER be able to understand everything or take in all the evidence. This is one reason why sceptics actually do have some belief and faith.
The other reason is that teh totality of the evidence rarely amounts to 100% proof.

Originally posted by Beanbag
Most of the time, my choices are a matter of immediacy -- the issues I have to deal with NOW tend to take precedence over the other remote, stratospheric considerations. It's the old adage that you need to deal with the fact that you're up to your ass in alligators before you can even begin to drain the swamp.And this is probably the evolutionary reason why we tend to believe blindly what our "gut instincts" tell us. In life and death situations we must go with "gut instinct" because there is no time to collect the evidence and think it through. However later, when we have time, we can sit back and think it through and perhaps look for some evidence. And, lo and behold, we often find our "gut instincts" are just plain wrong.

Originally posted by Beanbag
By my definition, a skeptical athiest and a skeptical agnostic are the same bird: if you can provide valid evidence for god, either will become a deist because there is evidence. Strictly, gnosticism refers to knowledge pure and simple (not specifically to God). An agnostic says the knowledge is not available. If this knowledge refers to God, then he is agnostic in relation to God.....an agnostic atheist in other words.

Originally posted by Beanbag
An athiest or agnostic who blindly refuses to consider the evidence is just as closed-minded as a fundamentalist who flatly believes that the Bible or Koran is the last word on all matters, period. But there comes a time when you have to take a default position. If, after a long period of time, still no evidence becomes available, the default postion is to regard God as non-existent. As you say, we do not therefore close our minds off to the possibility that God may exist but remain open to being convinced by the appropriate evidence. How open-minded, though, is the real question here.

Originally posted by Beanbag
I'm a skeptic by my definition, and at the moment I'm an athiest as well, because I see no evidence for the existence of deities. You're a sceptic and an agnostic atheist with you mind just a little bit open to the possibility that God might exist (perhaps only fractionally more so than for that fabled pink unicorn).

Originally posted by Beanbag
Whether the existence of god can be proven or disproven is a horse that's been pretty much thumped over, and generally considered unproveable either way. As has been said many times before, you cannot prove something does not exist. Can you prove the fabled pink unicorn does not exist? The burden of proof (evidence) is on the believers. The longer and more comprehensively this evidence is lacking the more justified is the default position that the fabled pink unicorn does not exist.

Originally posted by Beanbag
The common ground for a skeptical deist and a skeptical athiest is the willingness to consider evidence and draw their conclusions based on the facts. Where facts are not available, then you have to follow your hunches, which is nothing more than deciding what you think is likely. Why do have to follow your hunches? In the life and death situation you have no choice. But with the question of God there is plenty of time to weigh up and consider. It is illogical to just blindly follow your hunches. Hunches are a dime a dozen, everyone has them. Without evidence there is absolutely nothing to separate the wheat from the chaff.....nothing to elevate any one above the rest

Originally posted by Beanbag
Occam's Razor actually shaves the deist point of view more cleanly than the athiest viewpoint. What could be a simpler explanation than "God did it" ? Comes across as much simpler than evolution, the Big Bang theory, quantum physics, etc. Except that Ockham's Razor is not simply about simplicity?
Positing God does not lead to any predictions.....it doesn't add to what we already know.....has no explanatory power. In a word, it is unnecessary.
Compare with Evolution, Big bang and Quantum Theory.

Originally posted by Beanbag
Mr. Bidlak has stated that he believes in a supreme being or god. I can't prove him wrong; I don't think he can prove he's correct. So the logical thing to do is to take the default position that God (faeries, pink unicorns) does not exist and wait to see if the evidence is forthcoming.

Originally posted by Beanbag
But what I find most admirable about him is his ability to not let this fundamental, unresolveable disagreement become an obstacle to knowing and understanding those things that ARE knowable and testable. Well so do I but the question is why the selectivity about God (not knowable and not testable). Why does he choose to believe in God but not faeries or the fabled pink unicorn.
I see no virtue in just blindly following your gut instincts.

[Beanbag]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
.....and his belief to be in proportion to that evidence.

snip

Well so do I but the question is why the selectivity about God (not knowable and not testable). Why does he choose to believe in God but not faeries or the fabled pink unicorn.
I see no virtue in just blindly following your gut instincts.

People are the result of their environment and experiences. --MOST-- people are raised with some exposure to the concept of a supreme being or god. When confronted with something new or perplexing, the first thing most will do is to return to what's familiar to find an answer.

Consider this: I wake up and find a shoe in the middle of the bedroom floor. It wasn't there when I went to bed. Who put it there? God? Don't think so. I'd suspect one of my cats dragged it there by the shoelace and had a good chew.

Now, somewhere in life, people realize that there's a universe out there. Who put it there? God? Perhaps. I think it's a more credible theory than one of my cats. People expect things to be put there by SOMEBODY. Note I think it's more credible, not that I think it's likely. I use this as an illustration; let's not get bogged down on the god vs. cat theories.

As to my being a bit open-minded about the existence of god, let's just say that I'm open-minded to any proposition that can be proven with evidence that I consider valid. I know for a fact that pink unicorns exist, because I've actually SEEN THEM on the shelf in a toy store, next to the other stuffed animals (context is everything; we can split hairs in successive replies for days if we really want to. No, I don't want to).

My biggest stumbling block to believing in god is that (s)he lacks an essential quality for the modern business manager: the ability to communicate in a clear, precise manner. Good evidence = Good communication. So far, it's all just mights and maybes.

I had high hopes for Islam, but in reading the Koran, I discovered it's just as full of contradictions, errors, and just plain meanness as the Bible. But what do you expect for a document compiled by a committee out of hundreds of different versions. And don't forget that ALL committees have an agenda of some kind.

Gut instincts? No, the only instinct my gut has is when it's empty. A hunch is based on consideration of what data is available, meager though it may be. Notice I said consideration -- that involves some time, not some snap judgement. My hunches are not always 100% correct, but for the most part they've never proven to be 100% wrong, either. They serve as a bridge to working on the next, better understanding. Hunches are when there is no good evidence available -- we use what's available that we know, and if they don't pan out, at least you know that idea didn't work, which is a gain of a sort.

There are times you have to take a default position, such as when the clerk asks "Regular or Super-sized?" My default position on god right now is, no, don't think so. But if you've got what you believe to be good evidence for god's existence, then I'd be happy to consider it in a reasonable, polite manner, and get back with you when I've had a chance to consider it.

Astounding things are out there, such as when Rutherford developed his model for the atom with most of the mass clustered in the nucleus. He based this on data that showed when electrons were fired at a thin gold foil, a few of them were deflected back directly at the source. His remark was something to the effect that it was as astonishing as if he'd fired an 8-inch naval gun at a sheet of tissue paper, and the shell bounced back. Astounding? Yes, but repeatable and testable and verifiable. The evidence for god will have to meet those three criteria as well for me to believe. My choice.

And Mr. Bidlack has his choice as well.

Regards;
Beanbag

[BillyJoe]

beanbag,

Sorry, I find your post a bit confusing.....

Originally posted by Beanbag
People are the result of their environment and experiences. --MOST-- people are raised with some exposure to the concept of a supreme being or god. When confronted with something new or perplexing, the first thing most will do is to return to what's familiar to find an answer. Okay, you are talking about "God" and "familiar things" so I'm assuming that the "familiar thing" that you are going to return to "when confronted with something new or perplexing" is going to be God. But no.....

Originally posted by Beanbag
Consider this: I wake up and find a shoe in the middle of the bedroom floor. It wasn't there when I went to bed. Who put it there? God? Don't think so. I'd suspect one of my cats dragged it there by the shoelace and had a good chew. The familar thing is your cat! Fair enough but you hadn't mentioned him yet so I'm wondering what happened to God.....

Originally posted by Beanbag
Now, somewhere in life, people realize that there's a universe out there. Who put it there? God? Perhaps. I think it's a more credible theory than one of my cats. Here he is. "God" is a more credible as the creator of the universe than your cat. Now why would that be? I agree that your cat is unlikely to be the creator of the universe. But what about God then. There is no evidence that He even exists! At least your cat has that going for him. Not only that but "God" requires more explanation than the universe He is meant to explain. Can't you see it's just a hopeless concept.

Originally posted by Beanbag
As to my being a bit open-minded about the existence of god, let's just say that I'm open-minded to any proposition that can be proven with evidence that I consider valid. You seem to be saying that you are open-minded about the existence of God but the reason you give is a reason to NOT to be open-minded about God. (because there is no valid evidence to be considered)

Originally posted by Beanbag
I know for a fact that pink unicorns exist, because I've actually SEEN THEM on the shelf in a toy store, next to the other stuffed animals (context is everything; we can split hairs in successive replies for days if we really want to. No, I don't want to). "context is everything" you say and then you take my pink unicorns out of context???
You split hairs and then say that you don't want to split hairs???
I'm wondering whether I should take you seriously but perhaps you are just being silly so I'll carry on.....

Originally posted by Beanbag
My biggest stumbling block to believing in god is that he lacks an essential quality for the modern business manager: the ability to communicate in a clear, precise manner.Beanbag, He is not communicating at all.

Originally posted by Beanbag
I had high hopes for Islam, but in reading the Koran, I discovered it's just as full of contradictions, errors, and just plain meanness as the Bible. But what do you expect for a document compiled by a committee out of hundreds of different versions. And don't forget that ALL committees have an agenda of some kind. ;)

Originally posted by Beanbag
Gut instincts? No, the only instinct my gut has is when it's empty.Well, my gut just has sensations. My "gut instincts" actually reside in my brain.
(Okay, I'm being silly now)

Originally posted by Beanbag
A hunch is based on consideration of what data is available, meager though it may be. Notice I said consideration -- that involves some time, not some snap judgement. My hunches are not always 100% correct, but for the most part they've never proven to be 100% wrong, either. They serve as a bridge to working on the next, better understanding. Hunches are when there is no good evidence available -- we use what's available that we know, and if they don't pan out, at least you know that idea didn't work, which is a gain of a sort. Beanbag, a hunch is just a gut instinct. Okay, a hunch is not a snap decision but it is also not a consideration of the data. Hunches are based on fuzzy things floating around in your brain lining up with other metaphorically similar fuzzy things floating around inside your brain making connections which hopefully have meaning. Very often they are meaningful and hence they are useful for doing things on the run. But, if you have time to consider - as you do for considerations such as "God" - you need to test your gut instincts/hunches against the evidence because they are not as reliable as evidence.

Originally posted by Beanbag
My default position on god right now is, no, don't think so. But if you've got what you believe to be good evidence for god's existence, then I'd be happy to consider it in a reasonable, polite manner, and get back with you when I've had a chance to consider it.Beanbag, the default position is "No".
(And this doesn't mean you will not consider any evidence that may come up in the future.)

Originally posted by Beanbag
Astounding things are out there...... Astounding? Yes, but repeatable and testable and verifiable. The evidence for god will have to meet those three criteria as well for me to believe. My choice.
And Mr. Bidlack has his choice as wellYou are making it sound as if both of you are doing the same thing when, in fact, they are almost complete opposites.
You choose to look for evidence that God exists- rational, scientific evidence.
Hal Bidlack chooses just to believe God exists - irrational, unscientific gut instinct (not my words, Hal Bidlacks)

regards,
BillyJoe

[Beanbag]

I can't say anything for sure about other people, but I base my hunches on what facts I do know. As I said in the first post, there's some basic inadequacy in the language for trying to get points across. Spoken words are a poor substitute for telepathy.

Thanks for the discussion, and keeping it on a courteous, thoughtful level.

Regards;
Beanbag