Who's Gained the most Ground?

[Porterboy]

I was just wondering how many skeptics are former woos and how many woos are former skeptics?

Almost every time I go along to a Spiritualist church or discussion group I hear someone say: "I used to be a skeptic, but...". This occasionally happens the other way around as well. Derren Brown, the British illusionist and skeptic, said on one of his shows: "I used to be a happy-clappy Christian until I realized what a load of nonsense it all is." I personally feel that cases like Derren's are the minority. Most Skeptics, when asked, seem to have been a skeptic for most, if not all of their lives.

I don't think this process will result in a world full of woos and no skeptics, or vice versa (Neither scenario sounds very appealing to me; God, wouldn't it be boring!), but the long term conclusion may be a shift in the baseline opionion or paradigm of humanity.

[SRW]

In the end truth will prevail. And science will become the standard to judge the world. Not to say we will loose all the spiritual, but science will prevail.

[rjh01]

These people who say they were skeptics never produce any evidence that they were once skeptics. The Internet will slowly destroy the woos as it allows information to be easily obtained. Then it will be a matter of people opening their minds to the correct information, and realising that woo information is plainly wrong. That will be the major benefit of the Internet.

It will take a long time, but it will happen.

[Kaarjuus]

I used to believe a lot of nonsense. But then again, I was 13..

My adult years have been very down to earth.

[Minarvia]

I used to read all sorts of "woo" stuff, but never really accepted it. Sometimes I sort of did, then realized that I wasn't really committed to it. Now I no longer even read much "woo" stuff. It is all the same, hasn't changed in at least 30 years (at least what I read about did not) and now I am hardly interested anymore except to try to help others think more.
So I guess I was born a "sort of" skeptic, became a "sort of" woo person, and now returned to non-woo and more than "sort of" sanity. At least I hope so.

[skeptigirl]

No true skeptic ever becomes a woo. There might be a few who thought they were skeptics who caved in to religious superstitions, but that would be about it.

I know this from pure speculation using logic mind you, don't need any evidence. ;)

[chillzero]

No true skeptic ever becomes a woo. There might be a few who thought they were skeptics who caved in to religious superstitions, but that would be about it.

I know this from pure speculation using logic mind you, don't need any evidence. ;)

I can agree with this, from a different perspective. I was a woo - new age 'healer' and psychic and all that, but through it all I was always skeptical - asking questions and trying to find out why things were the way I thought (or wanted). I made my peers uncomfortable by challenging things they just stated or accepted as fact.

Anyone I know who said they were skeptics 'until ...' well, at the point the 'until' moment happened, they seem to stop asking questions and accept whatever it was. If they were true skeptics, they would have continued questioning it.

[John Jackson]

"I used to be a skeptic until..." blah blah.

They're using the word skeptic in place of 'disbeliever'. They never were a Skeptic, they were skeptical (big difference!).

This assumption that Skeptics are disbelievers or automatically opposed to things is something we really need to tackle.

For example, I recently got an enquiry from a BBC radio producer doing a phone-in programme on the possibility of extra-terrestrial life existing.

He wote:
I have a couple of guests who DO believe there is life out there, but I would really love to invite a skeptic on the programme at 1.45pm to put your own views across. Notice the implicit assumption that Skeptics do not believe in extra-terrestrial life.

Such ignorance is widespread unfortunately.

As to those "I was a skeptic", "I believe in X but I'm a 'skeptic of' Y", and those who are married to "the world's biggest skeptic"; well all we can do is point out their mistake to them (and others) and hope they realise that the term 'Skeptic' is being used incorrectly.

Btw, I think one of the causes of this problem is the fact that skeptic is used as the opposite to believer. For example in forum threads like: Ghosts, are you a believer or a skeptic?

'Skeptic' is not the opposite of 'believer' (!)

[Jeff Corey]

...For example, I recently got an enquiry from a BBC radio producer doing a phone-in programme on the possibility of extra-terrestrial life existing.

He wote:
I have a couple of guests who DO believe there is life out there, but I would really love to invite a skeptic on the programme at 1.45pm to put your own views across. Notice the implicit assumption that Skeptics do not believe in extra-terrestrial life...

That's a coincidence- a few years ago I was on a local public TV show debating a UFO believer. The first thing that was thrown at me was, "With all the stars out there, don't you believe there could be like on other planets?" with the clear implication that I didn't, since I was a skeptic.
And the believer "used to be a skeptic", too. I've seen this with at least a dozen UFOers, starting way back with Whitney Schreiber. It's a ploy to convince people who are not believers that the UFOer used to be a smart "skeptic" just like them, but was exposed to such an overwhelming amount of evidence that they became convinced.
This happens in alt medicine, too. "I used to think that herbal remedies were old wives' tales, but when my whole family came down with X, we took Y and were are cured in days."

[pchams]

I was thinking exactly what John Jackson said. They were skeptical about religion, for instance, but may have not been a critical thinker.
I propose that we are all born skeptics, then become indoctrinated with various forms of woo by our parents and culture.
Some of us make it back to thinking critically about questions, and some are
just comfortable/lazy/afeared ;) thinking 'higher powers' did it.

[luchog]

In the end truth will prevail. And science will become the standard to judge the world. Not to say we will loose all the spiritual, but science will prevail.

Horsecrap. Never underestimate the human ability and desire to self-deceive, or human laziness. As long as woo provides an easy and comfortable answer, ie. tell us what makes us feel good and doesn't challenge us to think, then people will believe in it.

[Dogdoctor]

Your problem is you classify religion as woo. Only certain beliefs are notably woo. There are probably as many skeptics who are not atheists as one who are. Of course if you think all religion is woo then carry on.

[pchams]

Your problem is you classify religion as woo. Only certain beliefs are notably woo. There are probably as many skeptics who are not atheists as one who are. Of course if you think all religion is woo then carry on.
Which "certain beliefs" are not woo?

[Treehuggerish]

Which "certain beliefs" are not woo?

Dang, I was going to write that.

As far as I know, every system of social coherence that is, or has been, commonly accepted as a religion, is woo.
Or, as to not offend anyone, has had a supernatural element to it, in many cases being some supernatural object or being.
You could point the finger at buddhism and say "that is not woo". But buddhism is a non-theistic religion. It is much more a practical way of life, in my oppinion.

[Jeff Corey]

We could complile a list of religions that are clearly nonskeptical. ("Woo" is just too farkin silly for me use whilst teaching, so why use it at all?}
$cientology strikes me as reaally silly, but what about the people who worship their dead ancestors? Or think their god rose from the dead?
Like Randi, I was raised in the C of E and saw through the silly beliefs they taught at an early age.

[pchams]

We could go back to DogDoctor's original, "Only certain beliefs are notably woo" and work from there, but I think we may have grabbed the wrong end of the stick, work-wise.
To be fair, I guess we could substitute "supernatural" for "woo", if that makes people more comfortable.

[Dogdoctor]

My point was that you can exclude the lot of people who are skeptics and belong to skeptics groups and fight woo because they believe there is something that cannot be proved or disproved and has no effect on anything that we can test. If you do then you have cut the population of skeptics in half at least. Go and include any who have mistakenly believed in something which is woo and you have almost none.

[Dogdoctor]

A more significant way to look at this in my opinion is what is the sum total of woo beliefs in a given population today compared to a time in the past? Have we dispelled more woo than we have gained? If you look at things from this perspective I would say we are making ground.

[SRW]

Horsecrap. Never underestimate the human ability and desire to self-deceive, or human laziness. As long as woo provides an easy and comfortable answer, ie. tell us what makes us feel good and doesn't challenge us to think, then people will believe in it.

Oh Come on I was just living in my own woo woo world.

[bjb]

I think too many of us skeptics are skeptical about other people's beliefs, but non-skeptical when it comes to their own. To me, this is the real challenge of skepticism, to hold yourself to the same standards that you would impose upon someone who is promoting strange beliefs. I think this is the greatest payoff of skeptical thinking, to rid yourself of your own strange beliefs, but a lot of skeptics aren't willing to go this far. Some skeptics do admit they hold irrational beliefs for irrational reasons and that's probably the most that can be asked of them.

[Zygar]

I think too many of us skeptics are skeptical about other people's beliefs, but non-skeptical when it comes to their own. To me, this is the real challenge of skepticism, to hold yourself to the same standards that you would impose upon someone who is promoting strange beliefs. I think this is the greatest payoff of skeptical thinking, to rid yourself of your own strange beliefs, but a lot of skeptics aren't willing to go this far. Some skeptics do admit they hold irrational beliefs for irrational reasons and that's probably the most that can be asked of them.

I agree completely. Unfortunately it took me many years to develop the ability to hold myself to my own skepticism. I believe that it is simply a matter of maturity. Both maturity in general, and maturity as a skeptic.

[JonnyFive]

I agree completely. Unfortunately it took me many years to develop the ability to hold myself to my own skepticism. I believe that it is simply a matter of maturity. Both maturity in general, and maturity as a skeptic.

I have to agree as well. It can be very difficult to give up personal beliefs that, while unsupported by evidence, may be extremely comforting.

[rats]

I used to believe in all sorts of things; some as a comfort, but most because I simply hadn’t thought about them. Now I find myself questioning any incoming information, often to unexpected results.

With regards the OP, I think the reality is that more ‘believers’ have become ‘sceptics’ than vice versa, because the sentence ‘I used to be sceptic, but now I believe **** that isn’t backed up by evidence’ doesn’t actually make sense!

I agree with John Jackson (and others); the term sceptic has become synonymous with ‘unbeliever’. I even tend to avoid describing myself as a sceptic. I usually say rationalist, or that I try to think critically. However, this thread has made me think such misinterpretation of the word ‘sceptic’ should be addressed as often as we can. I shall now endeavour to use the ‘s’ word, and work through the immediately aggressive defensiveness of believers.

Not meaning to offend anyone, but I don’t understand how one can be a ‘sceptic’ and believe in a deity. I try not to judge people by their beliefs, it’s just something I don’t comprehend.

[Zygar]

Not meaning to offend anyone, but I don’t understand how one can be a ‘sceptic’ and believe in a deity. I try not to judge people by their beliefs, it’s just something I don’t comprehend.

The deity delusion is perhaps the hardest to relieve oneself of. It is often engrained in a person from childhood, supported by a family structure, reinforced by weekly brainwashing sessions, and reaffirmed by periodic appeals to God for assistance which are rewarded due to self-fulfilling prophesy.

I am definitely a skeptic. And I am definitely an Athiest. But I believe strongly in freedom of religion. I cannot expect others to slough off the god delusion simply because I have. It was an extremely long, painful, and complicated process. You can be a skeptic without reaching the athiest conclusion. But being a skeptic means that you should also examine your religion skeptically. Given time, you will make your own conclusion, and that is all we should expect of anyone.

[Porterboy]

So I guess I was born a "sort of" skeptic, became a "sort of" woo person, and now returned to non-woo and more than "sort of" sanity. At least I hope so.

I'm the exact opposite. I was brought up in a strongly Catholic family until I was a teenager and it struck me how absurd my kin's beliefs were. I was a rationalist atheist for a decade or more, but slowly began to find that (unlike most members of this forum) this approach didn't ring true for me either. Today I am a Woo, albeit a post-conventional one; eg: I believe that there is a God, but none of the religions have a clue what it is.

I think that the "former skeptics" who come to my Spiritualist church are actually just people who've been through a kind of psychological demolition process when they realized that whatever belief they held before just wasn't true. they then settled into a new view of the world. It's possible that some of the ex-Woo rationalists on this forum know what I mean.

[Porterboy]

No true skeptic ever becomes a woo. There might be a few who thought they were skeptics who caved in to religious superstitions, but that would be about it.

I know this from pure speculation using logic mind you, don't need any evidence. ;)

I disagree. Maybe I wasn't a "true skeptic" by your definition, but I was someone who very much synched with what I read today in Skeptic literature.

[Porterboy]

The Internet will slowly destroy the woos as it allows information to be easily obtained. Then it will be a matter of people opening their minds to the correct information, and realising that woo information is plainly wrong. That will be the major benefit of the Internet.

It will take a long time, but it will happen.

I don't think so. I can see the future as a world where rationalism and skepticism will flourish, but so will unspecified spiritual and mystical beliefs. The expansion of both will be at the expense of today's organized religions. The future spirituality will be pantheistic and gnostic, rather than the scripture and superstition-based religion of today.

[Piggy]

In my youth, I got involved with a lot of freaky-deaky stuff *because* I'm a skeptic. Sure, there were elders telling me it was all bunk. But then again, some of these same people believed that Jesus rose from the dead, so what the **** did they know?

Seemed to me (and still does) that you have to test things for yourself.

I tried a lot of angles, and some were valid, and others were bogus. But if you never really give the weird stuff a shot -- whether it's quantum mechanics or psi -- you're in no position to say what holds water and what doesn't.

The difference between the skeptic and the true believer is that the skeptic is able to walk away from anything that doesn't hold up -- no matter how much s/he wishes that it did.

[Zygar]

In my youth, I got involved with a lot of freaky-deaky stuff *because* I'm a skeptic. Sure, there were elders telling me it was all bunk. But then again, some of these same people believed that Jesus rose from the dead, so what the **** did they know?

Seemed to me (and still does) that you have to test things for yourself.

I tried a lot of angles, and some were valid, and others were bogus. But if you never really give the weird stuff a shot -- whether it's quantum mechanics or psi -- you're in no position to say what holds water and what doesn't.

The difference between the skeptic and the true believer is that the skeptic is able to walk away from anything that doesn't hold up -- no matter how much s/he wishes that it did.

That's the best description of skepticism that I've ever seen.

[rjh01]

I don't think so. I can see the future as a world where rationalism and skepticism will flourish, but so will unspecified spiritual and mystical beliefs. The expansion of both will be at the expense of today's organized religions. The future spirituality will be pantheistic and gnostic, rather than the scripture and superstition-based religion of today.


The only sentence that I do not agree with is the first one. Yes many forms of religion will exist for a long time. The details are mostly unknown, so cannot argue with you on anything after your first sentence.

About all what can be said for them is that the woo religions will be individually small and without much power. They will however, have more power than what their numbers will suggest.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I think too many of us skeptics are skeptical about other people's beliefs, but non-skeptical when it comes to their own. To me, this is the real challenge of skepticism, to hold yourself to the same standards that you would impose upon someone who is promoting strange beliefs. I think this is the greatest payoff of skeptical thinking, to rid yourself of your own strange beliefs, but a lot of skeptics aren't willing to go this far. Some skeptics do admit they hold irrational beliefs for irrational reasons and that's probably the most that can be asked of them.

This can be a very painful process. I like to read the snopes website, but sometimes I have to stop. It is too painful to learn that I've been bamboozled.

LLH

[JonnyFive]

The difference between the skeptic and the true believer is that the skeptic is able to walk away from anything that doesn't hold up -- no matter how much s/he wishes that it did.

I think this is something I've never seen a true believer acknowledge. I've seen skeptics painted as close-minded bigots plenty, but never the simple fact that being skeptical means asking for proof, and accepting when evidence points in other directions.

I would love to have mystic powers. I would love to be able to move things with my mind and travel through time and live forever. The evidence does not support those kind of desires, sadly. As a skeptic I choose to accept this, even in those cases when it isn't the most wonderful and fun situation.

As others have said, that's what made religion (of the wishy-washy, God loves everyone variety) hardest for me to examine critically. I wished there was a protector up in the sky who would allow me to be eternally happy when I died. I have seen no good evidence of that, but it was a very hard belief to give up.

[Minarvia]

[QUOTE=Porterboy;2113835]I'm the exact opposite. I was brought up in a strongly Catholic family until I was a teenager and it struck me how absurd my kin's beliefs were. I was a rationalist atheist for a decade or more, but slowly began to find that (unlike most members of this forum) this approach didn't ring true for me either. Today I am a Woo, albeit a post-conventional one; eg: I believe that there is a God, but none of the religions have a clue what it is.
QUOTE]

Wow, that is well said, and I can't say that I've ever personally met anyone like you. I think most of us here are indeed your opposite. To me Atheism rings truer than when I was Catholic. But I fully appreciate the feeling of "not ringing true" whether it stems from beginnings like mine or from yours.

[T'ai Chi]

I was just wondering how many skeptics are former woos and how many woos are former skeptics?


All skeptic means is that you have doubt in at least one area.

That's why saying one is a former skeptic is pretty meaningless.

[skeptigirl]

Your problem is you classify religion as woo. Only certain beliefs are notably woo. There are probably as many skeptics who are not atheists as one who are. Of course if you think all religion is woo then carry on.While there are many skeptics who can't let go of that last ingrained belief of a god and an afterlife, it doesn't make religion any less woo.

If my statement isn't true then tell me, what distinguishes faith in a religion from faith in the supernatural or faith in homeopathy or faith in 'you name the woo'?

The Earth isn't flat, the Sun does not orbit the Earth, the Earth isn't 6,000 years old. We let those myths go. Isn't it time we let the myths of gods go as well?

[Piggy]

All skeptic means is that you have doubt in at least one area.

Not for me, it doesn't.

That's like saying you're a vegetarian if you don't eat pork, but figure poultry and beef are ok.

A skeptic is someone who applies skeptical principles to his or her life.

If you only apply those principles to some things and not to others, then you're a person who is sometimes skeptical, sometimes not. And anyone can do that.

[skeptigirl]

A more significant way to look at this in my opinion is what is the sum total of woo beliefs in a given population today compared to a time in the past? Have we dispelled more woo than we have gained? If you look at things from this perspective I would say we are making ground.Most definitely in the long run, "we've come a long way, baby." Two steps forward, one step back as far as dispelling religious myths.


But as to skeptics, I don't fault the skeptics who can't let go of that last thread of religion they were brought up to believe in. That's a very big leap for some people. For those folks, I'm happy if they just buy into science for the rest of their belief systems.

[skeptigirl]

I disagree. Maybe I wasn't a "true skeptic" by your definition, but I was someone who very much synched with what I read today in Skeptic literature....I believe that there is a God, but none of the religions have a clue what it is. (two post's quotes combined)

As a skeptic one looks for evidence. In your case from how I read your posts you were disillusioned by Catholicism. That can occur by lots of means and skepticism is only one of them.

Also being an atheist doesn't automatically equate with skepticism.

So what do you define skepticism as? Merely disregarding the religion you were brought up with, drifting a while, then finding your own version of religion? Or seeing the world as defined by evidence? And if evidence is how you determine what is real, what exists, then what 'evidence' brought you to the conclusion there is a god after all? Can you test that hypothesis?

[skeptigirl]

All skeptic means is that you have doubt in at least one area.....One definition of skepticism is doubting something. But I would wager the majority of people who consider themselves skeptics as the term is applied in this group and in the affiliated groups like Skepchicks, The Skeptics Friends Network and the Skeptics from the Skeptical Inquirer site, that isn't the meaning we apply to ourselves at all.

Being a skeptic means you accept an evidence based world. A skeptic looks to the scientific process and tests what appears to be true rather than taking one's brain reflex belief as conclusive, and as Piggy put it, "The difference between the skeptic and the true believer is that the skeptic is able to walk away from anything that doesn't hold up -- no matter how much s/he wishes that it did."

Skeptics recognize our minds evolved to look for patterns of cause and effect. We resist the reflex to assume coincidences are meaningful until the scientific process is applied to sort the coincidences out from true associations and true cause and effect relationships. Skeptics go where the evidence leads rather than looking for evidence to validate existing beliefs.

Skeptics look to the scientific process to discover the wonders of the Universe. We don't look to ancient texts and long held beliefs to understand our Universe.

[JonnyFive]

Also being an atheist doesn't automatically equate with skepticism.

Certainly not, as I've seen atheists who credulously accept all kinds of claims about psychic powers and what-not.

[Stitch]

The Internet will slowly destroy the woos as it allows information to be easily obtained.

Equally it allows mis-information and unscientific propaganda to be distributed to a wider audience. There is no easy way to determine the good from the bad unless you already have scientific / critical thinking skills in place.

[Piggy]

Equally it allows mis-information and unscientific propaganda to be distributed to a wider audience. There is no easy way to determine the good from the bad unless you already have scientific / critical thinking skills in place.
Also, it's making a lot of young people very lazy.

What? No Web link? Gotta go to a library? Gotta buy a book or journal? Gotta read several different sources in print and draw conclusions for myself? No time, no time, can't be bothered.

[Jeff Corey]

Also, it's making a lot of young people very lazy.

What? No Web link? Gotta go to a library? Gotta buy a book or journal? Gotta read several different sources in print and draw conclusions for myself? No time, no time, can't be bothered.

Seconded. Predictably, whenever I assign a literature search on a topic, the day before the assignment is due, I get a flurry of emails complaining that no studies exist on the topic. This is when the college library contains many such studies.
This is after an hour presentation by a reference librarian on how to use the library resources.

[rjh01]

Equally it allows mis-information and unscientific propaganda to be distributed to a wider audience. There is no easy way to determine the good from the bad unless you already have scientific / critical thinking skills in place.

At least the woo will soon be shown that there is a difference of opinion on certain topics. If the woo is not 100% closed minded on that topic they can use that they have to work out that the world is not what they have been told. Then with luck the process will repeat itself with other topics. Doubt will be placed in their minds on even more woo topics and leave those views vulnerable to change.

True, some students will give all sorts of excuses for not doing work. What is new?

I am not going to try to tell you all you need to do if wave the Internet and all problems will be solved. It will take time. Some woos will never be convinced. They will just grow old and die of old age. However some of their children will get on the Internet and find out that their parents do not know everything. This combined with other methods already in place will mean that they will be less woo then their parents.