Skeptic (but still a Christian) fan.

[RandFan]

I'm one of those who actually believe it is possible to be a skeptic and a Christian. But then one can just as easily be a Mormon and be a skeptic. If there are no tall Quakers living on the moon then no messianic figure walked on water, turned water into wine or rose from the dead. These are notions that don't really survive skepticism. They take faith. And one can have faith in anything. You see, Mr. Huntington fulfilled the prophecy after he died and visited the spirits on the moon. With God a little imagination all things are possible.

I respect Shaun but I'm a little disappointed that he is unwilling to go all the way with his critical thinking.

[Ian Osborne]

I'm one of those who actually believe it is possible to be a skeptic and a Christian.

It's possible to be a skeptic and hold any belief, as long as you're prepared to have that belief questioned and abandon it if the evidence so demands. Skepticism is a methodology, not a conclusion.

[cgallaga]

Well played old chum. Capital.

[Beady]

It's possible to be a skeptic and hold any belief, as long as you're prepared to have that belief questioned and abandon it if the evidence so demands. Skepticism is a methodology, not a conclusion.

You really don't understand the nature of faith. In this instance, all you have to do is just declare that science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with each other; religious questions are not to be answered by recourse to science, and scientific questions are not to be answered with recourse to religion. The only trick, and it's really quite easy to master, is to steadfastly refuse to allow one sphere to impinge on another.

Sort of like Copernicus(?), retaining belief in an earth-centered "solar" system while using heliocentrism to simplify his calculations.

[Ian Osborne]

You really don't understand the nature of faith. In this instance, all you have to do is just declare that science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with each other; religious questions are not to be answered by recourse to science, and scientific questions are not to be answered with recourse to religion. The only trick, and it's really quite easy to master, is to steadfastly refuse to allow one sphere to impinge on another.

Now that's a very unskeptical attitude.

[Beady]

Now that's a very unskeptical attitude.

That's your opinion. Someone like, say, Martin Gardner, apparently disagrees with you and, if we're talking weight of evidence, which of the two of you has more credibility?

[Apathia]

I welcome Christians and people who identify and associate themselves with that tradition to varying extents to this board. I respect individuals.

Sure, I'm irked by people who come onto these boards with an agenda to convert, but on that score we have more skeptic axe swingers here than evangelicals.

[Ian Osborne]

That's your opinion. Someone like, say, Martin Gardner, apparently disagrees with you and, if we're talking weight of evidence, which of the two of you has more credibility?

..Therefore, he must be right! :rolleyes:

[Beady]

..Therefore, he must be right! :rolleyes:

QED, if that's the best counterargument you can muster.

I doubt anyone can credibly accuse Gardner of not being skeptical. Go ahead, try it. Yet, he is an admitted Believer (although I don't know of what, if any, particular type).

[Wowbagger]

I tell everyone that confessing religious belief is nothing to be ashamed of, even around here. As long as: 1. You don't hurt anyone and 2. You try to avoid making claims of fact that are demonstratably false.
But, those two points also apply to everyone else, including (but not limited to) atheists, as well. So, there is really no difference.

[Beady]

2. You try to avoid making claims of fact that are demonstratably false.

But that's the essential point about "Faith": The demonstration has to be in context. For the skeptical Believer, the universe can work differently inside a church/synagogue/mosque from the way it works in the Real World (tm).

[Wowbagger]

But that's the essential point about "Faith": The demonstration has to be in context. For the skeptical Believer, the universe can work differently inside a church/synagogue/mosque from the way it works in the Real World (tm).Regarding my statement "You try to avoid making claims of fact that are demonstratably false":
Perhaps I should add the words "in public" to that.
You can think whatever you want, but when you make claims of fact, to others, they must be demonstrably true... OR... in certain circumstances you can claim you are only speaking philosophically, and NOT really stating fact.

A lot of belief can not be demonstrated true or false, anyway, such as the existence God. I don't think there should be limits on expressing such beliefs (until such time as empirical evidence comes forward, either way, but don't hold your breathe).

Under those statements, you can be a skeptic and believe in God, if you wanted to.

[tkingdoll]

People can believe what they want. However, it puzzles me that someone would willingly apply the label 'Skeptic' with a capital S to themselves whilst at the same time adding in caveats. If being a Skeptic is to not accept a claim without sufficient evidence, why is the claim that God exists outside of that?

It isn't a consistent position any more than being a Skeptic and a believer in telepathy is. Or being a Skeptic and yet supporting the existence of Bigfoot.

But if we start to say what Skeptics-with-a-capital-S are or aren't, we wander right into dogma territory. And I'd rather not. In fact, I'd rather there was no Skeptic-with-a-capital-S and we all just applied critical thinking where it suit us. I fail to see the problem with that. A little is better than none, a lot is better than a little, but all-or-nothing is unattractive to pretty much most people. I suspect that's why organised skepticism isn't more popular.

What is worth exploring, though, is why the skeptic community appears to give more respect to Skeptics who believe in God than other irrational beliefs. For example, would you start a thread like this one supporting Skeptics who belief in reiki?

[cyborg]

What is worth exploring, though, is why the skeptic community appears to give more respect to Skeptics who believe in God than other irrational beliefs.

Simple.

Traditional deference to god beliefs that is strongly engrained in our cultures. It is simply more acceptable by virtue of its acceptance at large. I imagine much the same thing would happen if UFO worship was large, long lived and organised.

[Tumblehome]

It's possible to be a skeptic and hold any belief, as long as you're prepared to have that belief questioned and abandon it if the evidence so demands. Skepticism is a methodology, not a conclusion.

Surely he's had a chance to consider the evidence on the bible. How can you be a skeptic and a Christian when the evidence against the bible is so overwhelming and has been around for so long? That's why "Christian skeptic" is an oxymoron for me (although it's still sexier than "Christian fundamentalist").

Traditional deference to god beliefs that is strongly engrained in our cultures.

Amen. ;)

[Beady]

How can you be a skeptic and a Christian when the evidence against the bible is so overwhelming...

Easy. Just seperate your life into two distinct areas. There's even a name for it: compartmentalization.

[Wowbagger]

People can believe what they want. However, it puzzles me that someone would willingly apply the label 'Skeptic' with a capital S to themselves whilst at the same time adding in caveats. If being a Skeptic is to not accept a claim without sufficient evidence, why is the claim that God exists outside of that? We should ask a Skeptic who does believe in God some of these questions. (Maybe Hal Bidlack, per chance?) It puzzles me, as well, why people still choose to cling to these things. I suspect the answer is personal, different for each individual.

It isn't a consistent position any more than being a Skeptic and a believer in telepathy is. Or being a Skeptic and yet supporting the existence of Bigfoot. Sagan's dragon comes to mind. We know the dragon isn't there. But, the one who thinks it is there might still live a perfectly functional life. As long as he doesn't hurt anyone, or state the dragon is scientific fact.

I guess the real problem is that people prone to see dragons will try to claim them as fact. But, I suppose if you want to be a member of the skeptical community, you have to reduce such things to forms of philosophy, and admit you don't really have empirical evidence to back the existence of dragons up.

But if we start to say what Skeptics-with-a-capital-S are or aren't, we wander right into dogma territory. And I'd rather not. In fact, I'd rather there was no Skeptic-with-a-capital-S and we all just applied critical thinking where it suit us. I fail to see the problem with that. A little is better than none, a lot is better than a little, but all-or-nothing is unattractive to pretty much most people. I suspect that's why organised skepticism isn't more popular. The last thing the Skeptical Movement needs is dogma. I like Randi's position: It should be open to anyone willing to open their minds, and should never be an atheist-only group.

What is worth exploring, though, is why the skeptic community appears to give more respect to Skeptics who believe in God than other irrational beliefs. For example, would you start a thread like this one supporting Skeptics who belief in reiki?I would answer this with two point:
1. If the belief is harmless, and kept internally, I don't see why it's anyone's business to interfere, even if the person is active in the Skeptical community.
And,
2. Some people need the security blanket. We don't rip security blankets away from babies. And, I don't think it's right to rip religion away from someone, and then expect to cram Pure Science down their throats, later.

Skeptics do not need to support anyone's specific beliefs, though. We merely need to defend everyone's right to believe. Again, as long as it is harmless, and not trying to state false "facts".

ETA: As far as reiki is concerned, it could conceivably harm people, since its followers might not be getting proper treatments for their ailments or whatever. Therefore, we should take care to expose it as garbage. But, a benign belief in God, I think, is not as threatening.

[CFLarsen]

What is worth exploring, though, is why the skeptic community appears to give more respect to Skeptics who believe in God than other irrational beliefs. For example, would you start a thread like this one supporting Skeptics who belief in reiki?

The difference is that those skeptics (e.g. Gardner, Bidlack) who do believe in God also clearly state that they don't believe in an intervening God. Gardner calls it Credo Consolans: He believes because it comforts him, but that it isn't true. They don't claim there is any evidence of their God.

It's the evidence. Always. ;)

[Jon.]

The difference is that those skeptics (e.g. Gardner, Bidlack) who do believe in God also clearly state that they don't believe in an intervening God. Gardner calls it Credo Consolans: He believes because it comforts him, but that it isn't true. They don't claim there is any evidence of their God.

It's the evidence. Always. ;)

I don't think Gardner's credo consolans goes so far as "it isn't true." More like he admits that there is no evidence to support his belief.

[CFLarsen]

I don't think Gardner's credo consolans goes so far as "it isn't true." More like he admits that there is no evidence to support his belief.

You could say it was the same thing. ;)

[joobz]

Now that's a very unskeptical attitude.
Do you apply a Skeptical attitude in all areas? Toward reading fiction?

People of faith hold science and Religion seperate in much the same way as they hold fiction seperate.

I agree with Randfan's assessment, including a slight dissappointment. it isn't at all crazy to think that faith that we'd apply no reason to our faith. The dissappointment comes in when that same person will use reason to debunk other faiths, but withhold it from their own.

[Jon.]

You could say it was the same thing. ;)

I could, but I think I'd be wrong.

[CFLarsen]

I could, but I think I'd be wrong.

Why?

[cyborg]

Do you apply a Skeptical attitude in all areas? Toward reading fiction?

Fiction is not reality.

People of faith hold science and Religion seperate in much the same way as they hold fiction seperate.

Except they are not separate as religion and science are certainly dealing with the same sphere of reality.

The dissappointment comes in when that same person will use reason to debunk other faiths, but withhold it from their own.

That is par for the course.

[kittynh]

All I know is that it is ok with Mr.Randi that I, a believer still, am here.

And Nova Land, and even ANOTHER moderator has some beliefs!

EEEKKK!!!

To say nothing of MLynn.

Heck, the only time I won the language award was when I wrote about being a believer.

So yeah, believers welcome, and trust me we are FAR more welcome here than in ANY fundie church.

[Jon.]

Why?


Because admitting that there is no evidence that something exists is not quite the same as admitting that it does not exist.

Admitting that there is no evidence that something exists may be perfectly valid grounds for acting as though it does not exist, or for believing that it does not exist, but it's not the same as admitting that it doesn't exist.

[Beady]

More like he admits that there is no evidence to support his belief.

You could say it was the same thing. ;)

And you'd be wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Slimething]

Faith is a coping mechanism. We all have one because life can be very challenging. Most skeptics hold faith in things they value other than a god. Religious people are helped by a belief in a god. So what? My personal coping system is my deep affection for people, nature, and the endless mysteries and learning opportunities life holds.

I am a scientist (a chemist) and most of my peers are skeptics and nontheistic. I cannot write generally but only from my own experience. There is discomfort among the rank and file in my field when a religious scientist is introduced into our staid population. That is because that trait (faith) to most of us is an indication that this person may not perform well if they show a tendency to believe in a system that cannot be tested. Such a scientist is watched very carefully by their peers until they establish that their religious belief system does not creep into their science. Most often, it doesn't but, when it does, that scientist is not really accepted by the group and the group is incorrectly labeled "intolerant" or "anti-religion".

However, this group dynamic is reversed when a nontheist, such as myself, re-enters the larger world where theists greatly outnumber nontheists. When I enter a new group, I get carefully watched to see if I'm "anti-religious", a crank or a science snob. Once the group determines I have none of those characteristics that they perceive scientists might be, I am accepted with open arms. Otherwise, I would imagine I'd consider them "anti-science" or Luddites or any one of a myriad of names I reserve for people who don't realize how priceless I am.

We have to accept and, further, respect the rights of others to think freely even if that extends to belief in woo systems. For the most part, I've seen that skeptics in this forum do that and only rail against the religious or woo believers when they are harming other people. The old maxim that my rights end where your nose begins certainly applies.

[fuelair]

I welcome Christians and people who identify and associate themselves with that tradition to varying extents to this board. I respect individuals.

Sure, I'm irked by people who come onto these boards with an agenda to convert, but on that score we have more skeptic axe swingers here than evangelicals.

Two perfect recent examples:
Macrina, Christian minister, believer, good person and not trying to convert anyone.

And

DavidJayJunkins, claims to be xtian, argumentative, dogmatic, pushing his sites hoping his ratings on (Google?) will go up, proselytising for himself and generally annoyingly twittish.

[SirPhilip]

And you'd be wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In any event though, it's bad form (an exception being educated presumption). Clouse believes portable mass-driving contraptions are largely bad for people's health, despite reality. :eusa_angel:

[SirPhilip]

Two perfect recent examples:
Macrina, Christian minister, believer, good person and not trying to convert anyone.

And

DavidJayJunkins, claims to be xtian, argumentative, dogmatic, pushing his sites hoping his ratings on (Google?) will go up, proselytising for himself and generally annoyingly twittish. A very good example (s) of why superstition should never be taken literally too by the former. People who are out of touch with themselves and others are similarly
out of touch with the world around them.

[Antiquehunter]

I think that it is possible to CAREFULLY construct a skeptical approach to life and maintain faith in some form of supreme being. (Too complicated for me - I'm very comfortable with my 'weak atheist' position.)

Personally, my thoughts are that ascribing to a Christian (or other monotheistic) set of beliefs is somewhat harder to justify, as opposed to a Hal Bidlack general non-intervening 'theist' approach - but not necessarily impossible.

As Beady points out, its possible philosophically to create a set of beliefs that allow skepticsm to all sorts of things, but to compartmentalize a set of beliefs and make a decision to not apply the same level of skepticsm to them. I find that approach a little disingenuous, but who am I to judge?

From my perspective, to be a Christian in any popular denomination of which I'm aware, you need to suspend skeptical application to certain bibble-ical passages (the resurrection of Lazarus for example) - but if any given 'skeptical Christian' is comfortable with their compartmentalization, and doesn't try and tell me I'm WRONG - then we're going to get along just fine.

-AH.

[cgallaga]

OK so is there no room for a Skeptic to believe in a god, while recognizing that all the evidence with which they have based that belief is subjective? Say through introspection, or non duplicable experience events?

I mean doesn't skepticism deal with what is knowable, not what is believable without knowing?

[SirPhilip]

You really don't understand the nature of faith. In this instance, all you have to do is just declare that science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with each other; religious questions are not to be answered by recourse to science, and scientific questions are not to be answered with recourse to religion. The only trick, and it's really quite easy to master, is to steadfastly refuse to allow one sphere to impinge on another.
Sort of like Copernicus(?), retaining belief in an earth-centered "solar" system while using heliocentrism to simplify his calculations.

There are two important distinctions that Catholicism in particular made, which are lost on most religious moderates and even clergy, concerning man's ultimate choice:

1) Life with God in a supposedly eternal - not cyclic and decaying universe, which we presently live in. God having demonstrated to be completely absent in this universe, and whose existence and characteristics is only validated by his likeness.

2) To follow a supposed adversary and his adherents into eternal extinguishment. Despite the church neurotically using this as a way to scare people, and basing persecution of occult and pagan religious practices on it, in the east, this religious suicide is practiced and promoted (the rejection of God, and oneself as having individual value), as liberation from suffering. Ultimately then, it is a choice between passing into relativity or overcoming it. Jainism in particular, is considered to be the oldest religion in the world, yet paradoxically is the least superstitious, almost all of it's philosophical observations being literally the same conclusions naturalists make. Is it so unreasonable to assume, even in a technologically ideal situation, that core human motivations would differ? People only invent things to reduce two things: uncertainty and discomfort.

[Antiquehunter]

OK so is there no room for a Skeptic to believe in a god, while recognizing that all the evidence with which they have based that belief is subjective? Say through introspection, or non duplicable experience events?

I mean doesn't skepticism deal with what is knowable, not what is believable without knowing?

Well it doesn't fall to me to say who is or who isn't 'a Skeptic'. But I think you're pointing out here that there is a need for a degree of compartmentalization. I can no more prove that there is no god than anyone else can prove (yet) there is one. I adopt the position that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the (weak) atheist position works for me. A theist could adopt the position that 'Well, I think there is something out there - something that doesn't intervene with life, something that doesn't respond to prayers. I can't prove it, you can't disprove it, lets go have a beer.' That position is OK with me as well.

[Beady]

The old maxim that my rights end where your nose begins certainly applies.

Actually, that's "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." :)

[Beady]

I mean doesn't skepticism deal with what is knowable, not what is believable without knowing?

McLean v Arkansas, 1981:

Science has five characteristics, none of which are shared by religious faith.

It is concerned solely with the physical universe;
It seeks answers solely with reference to physical law;
Its propositions are testable;
Its propositions are falsifiable;
Its propositions are tentative.Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, Chapter 11

Building on that, if any of these five items are missing, a proposition is not subject to scientific scrutiny because it is not a scientific proposition. If you are going to say that something is subject to scientific scrutiny regardless of whether these five criteria are present (Creationism, God, etc), then it is fit to be examined and discussed in a science classroom. Who, here, is going to argue for that?

[Antiquehunter]

Beady - I don't think we disagree - however I'd like to take your precis of Shermer's work and extend it to a specific set of beliefs - which is where I think you either have to make a larger stretch / more tenuous compartmentalization if you will, than your common-or-garden theist a la Hal Bidlack or Martin Gardner.

For lack of a better example, and since its the faith system I'm the most familiar with, lets examine Christianity in the light of Shermer's guidelines.

Posit:

- One is a Christian, following a moderate denomination - say... Episcopalian (Anglican).
- The Nicene Creed is a statement of faith which one thinks is an example of something to which any Protestant Christian must affirm, or at least be comfortable with the guidelines. The Creed itself makes a few statements that creep into the area of testable / falsifiable. Examples:
- The virgin birth of Jesus
- The resurrection of Jesus
- The resurrection of the dead

Now - here is a statement which starts to bend the rules a bit. I believe it is fair to say that there exists theological contraversy around the validity of the virgin birth. Certainly, if there was a virgin birth, it raises a lot of questions about what we know and understand about human reproduction. There has been no recorded example of a human virgin giving birth, and we have no empirical evidence that suggests Mary (if indeed she was the mother of Jesus) was indeed a virgin. So - I daresay that a skeptical position on the question of the Virgin birth would have to be AT MINIMUM 'I don't know' - it certainly must be that there is no empirical evidence (short of a book filled with a variety of inconsistencies - and its a pretty slippery slope to suggest that the book is itself infallible) that supports this assertion. A more reasonable position could be 'The preponderance of evidence suggests that a virgin giving birth is not possible. As such, I will suspend belief in the Virgin birth of the Christ until evidence suggests I am mistaken.' But - uh-oh - you've now violated a fundamental tenet of Christianity...

One can (and in my opinion, probably should) apply similar logic to the other points I made above. As such, I think its a much more difficult stretch for someone to state they are truly a Skeptical Christian - because if one examines the basic doctrines of mainstream Christianity, things seem to fall apart - rather rapidly, really.

I'm not saying its IMPOSSIBLE. People can follow their own flavour of Christianity I guess, and people can 'compartmentalize' all they want to make a belief system that suits their needs. But, it starts to become a pretty big stretch...

(With all due respect to folks like MLynn and Kittynh, with whom I am happy to have a beer with at any time, and enjoy their participation in the JRef / fora...)

-AH.

[Beady]

Beady - I don't think we disagree - however I'd like to take your precis of Shermer's work and extend it to a specific set of beliefs - which is where I think you either have to make a larger stretch / more tenuous compartmentalization if you will, than your common-or-garden theist a la Hal Bidlack or Martin Gardner.

Nope, I don't have to stretch at all (and remember, I'm not necesarily saying this is something I, myself, hold to be true). Religious questions are not scientific, therefore science does not apply. That's it. Period. In principle, it's exactly the same idea as "the best con men believe their own cons," while the con is running. While you are in one "sphere," you totally divorce yourself from all other spheres. The argument you are making right now (in the quote) assumes that the two spheres are somehow connected. For the Believer/Skeptic, they are not; he does not pass through a door from one to the other, he jumps across a gulf from one to another.

The shorter answer is, "Faith" is the one area the believing skeptic doesn't examine. I think that's where Gardner is at.

[CFLarsen]

Because admitting that there is no evidence that something exists is not quite the same as admitting that it does not exist.

Admitting that there is no evidence that something exists may be perfectly valid grounds for acting as though it does not exist, or for believing that it does not exist, but it's not the same as admitting that it doesn't exist.

And you'd be wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

None of you used the word "true", but instead chose the word "exist". I think that's what you both misunderstand about Gardner's position.

Consider this question:

Is it true, if there is no evidence?

Note that I don't ask "Is it possible that it is true?", but "Is it true?"

[Antiquehunter]

Well, my point was that some religious faith matters DO pass Shermer's 5 point 'test' if you will. The question of whether or not Jesus turned water into wine, or whether Lazarus rose from the dead ARE matters concerned with the physical world and physical laws, are testable (to an extent), falsifiable, and tentative insofar as someone is willing to consider them from a skeptical viewpoint.

Religions do make statements about the world which can (and should) be subjected to critical thought and skepticism. To quote Dawkins:

"There exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us" is a scientific hypothesis about the universe and one that should be treated with as much skepticism as any other hypothesis."

I believe you're suggesting a more Gouldian approach (NOMA) to the question of religion & science - I take more of a Dawkinsian approach. But not to the extent of alienating a segment of skeptics from a larger family.

[Beady]

Well, my point was that some religious faith matters DO pass Shermer's 5 point 'test' if you will. The question of whether or not Jesus turned water into wine, or whether Lazarus rose from the dead ARE matters concerned with the physical world and physical laws, are testable (to an extent), falsifiable, and tentative insofar as someone is willing to consider them from a skeptical viewpoint.

Let's take water into wine, just to keep it simple. First, let's not confuse the claimed occurrence of the incident with any possible mechanism. The implied claim is that a miracle occurred; that is, that physical law was suspended. That immediately removes the incident from the scientific sphere. Can physical law be suspended? I suggest that that proposition may be falsifiable, but I strongly question its testability.

Are there ways to turn water into wine that remain within physical law? That is another question, entirely.

[Brian Jackson]

Interesting thread. I am a Christian Skeptic in that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefor the notion of God isn't incompatible with science to me. However, if science could definitively prove that God doesn't exist, then I would no longer be Christian. Until then, I have faith that a mind greater than my own created reality (via the big bang.)

I also take evolution as fact, and don't understand why other Chistians feel so threatened by it. I simply see it as part of God's design, until it can be demonstrated otherwise.

I am however extremely skeptical of quack ideas that CAN INDEED be disproven when their supporters refuse to accept the science and adjust their "beliefs" accordingly. (hope I said that right.)

[maddog]

(snipped) If being a Skeptic is to not accept a claim without sufficient evidence, why is the claim that God exists outside of that? It isn't a consistent position any more than being a Skeptic and a believer in telepathy is. Or being a Skeptic and yet supporting the existence of Bigfoot.

What is worth exploring, though, is why the skeptic community appears to give more respect to Skeptics who believe in God than other irrational beliefs. For example, would you start a thread like this one supporting Skeptics who belief in reiki?

I think a skeptic can still believe a claim is likely to be true in the absence of evidence. Not with sufficient evidence to the contrary, though, of course. I don't think that skepticism/critical thinking/etc are incompatible with theism, but I do think that they are incompatible with many of the claims that are made about gods.

For example: "Jesus walked on water" -- I don't think a skeptic could reasonably believe this as fact (other than "on ice" or "he knew where the rocks were", etc.) based what evidence we know about the physical world.

On the other hand, physics "String Theory" hasn't been proven, and AFAIK has been determined to be unprovable/untestable because of the dimensions (both number of dimensions and physical sizes) required; yet many scientists "believe" in it -- think it is most likely true. If one was to posit that "God" (the flying string monster? :D) was likely responsible for all actions within the realm of strings, that too would be untestable. No problem with believing in that religion, then, is there?

Now, if I started sacrificing virgins in worship of the FStringM, that would be bad, but otherwise... it's basically irrelevant.

As for reiki... done in place of real medicine, it's a problem. Done just because it feels good, helps one relax/concentrate/whatever, then who cares? "Healing Touch"? I don't think so, but it certainly can feel good to take time for relaxing, concentrating/meditating/whatever, and have someone touching you, etc.

[Beth]

From my perspective, to be a Christian in any popular denomination of which I'm aware, you need to suspend skeptical application to certain bibble-ical passages (the resurrection of Lazarus for example)-AH.

I recently discovered Congregational Churches. While Christian, they hold that interpretation of the Bible is a strictly personal thing. Every member welcome to their own interpretation - i.e. a member can believe as much or as little of the Bible as being literally (or metaphorically) true as the individual desires. Hence, no dogma or dogmatic belief required. While I wasn't aware of such denominations until recently, apparently they have been around, along with their very tolerant attitudes towards varying degrees of belief in the literal truth of Bible, for about 200 years and certainly deserve to be considered part of mainstream Christianity.

I also take evolution as fact, and don't understand why other Chistians feel so threatened by it. I simply see it as part of God's design, until it can be demonstrated otherwise.

For some denominations a person cannot both believe in evolution and also believe in the tenets of their church. If a member of such a church accepts evolution as true, their faith may well crumble as a result of their acceptance of evolution. That is why some Christians feel so threatened by it, particularly by the teaching of evolution to their children.

[Moochie]

Easy. Just seperate your life into two distinct areas. There's even a name for it: compartmentalization.

Isn't that a clinical condition, signifying a sick mind?

M.

[cyborg]

Interesting thread. I am a Christian Skeptic in that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Therefor the notion of God isn't incompatible with science to me.

By the time people get to this point the notion of the god tends to be fuzzy as hell and a real slippery fellow.

I don't see the point in holding on to it. I suspect people do so because they tend to incorporate their identity with their religious beliefs - again simply because this is the tradition of the thing. The label of 'Christian' becomes flimsy as hell when skeptical analysis has to pretty much shred the Bible as any source of reliable information and the historicallity of the character portrayed within it who is supposedly the basis of the religion.

[Beady]

Isn't that a clinical condition, signifying a sick mind?

No.


(http://dictionary.reference.com/help/mwmed.html)Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/mwmed.html) - (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/mwmed.html)Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=compartmentalization&ia=mwmed)
Main Entry: com·part·men·tal·iza·tion
Variant: or British com·part·men·tal·isa·tion /k&m-"pärt-"ment-&l-&-'zA-sh&n/
Function: noun
: isolation or splitting off of part of the personality or mind with lack of communication and consistency between the parts
(http://dictionary.reference.com/help/mwmed.html)

[Ivor the Engineer]

Christian: A believer in the teachings of and miracles performed by Jesus Christ. That's all of them, not just cherry picking the nice ones or taking them out of context to make them acceptable by today’s moral or scientific standards.

Deist: A believer in a supernatural entity that created the universe and that is all it did. I.e. it does not affect or interfere in its creation in any way.

I would except that you can (just about) be a Sceptic and a Deist, but you can definitely not be a Sceptic and a Christian. ‘Sceptical Christian’ is an oxymoron.

You can be sceptical of lots of things and believe in anything you like. However, to be a Sceptic with a capital S you need to apply scepticism too all your beliefs that could possibly be tested. Christianity along with all the other major religions I’m aware of has plenty of those, which modern (or not so modern) science has shown to be wrong. Once you accept that even one of the testable claims made in a particular religion is false then you are no longer a believer in that religion. You either have faith in a religion or you don’t; I'm 92% Christian doesn't cut it.

So I would argue that those Christians who visit this forum, who come to discuss rather than convert, merely use the word as a label for their group to distinguish it from other groups, and as shorthand to broadcast the moral principles they try to live their lives by.

[kittynh]

well Ivor, you just made up some interesting definitions.

I'd say that skeptic or believer...there are a lot more ways to define a "good or bad" person or perhaps "thinker" than those two.

A skeptic or a believer that is intolerant, and practices willfull prejudice and is threatening and superior ("I believe in God and am going to heaven while you burn, hahaha, oh and since you are so stupid I can practice genocide on you...") is perhaps not a very nice person.

Any label, any simple label that is, can not define WHAT kind of person you are. It can only define one part of who you are.

[kittynh]

oh and one of our most popular skeptic speakers, goes to a chiropractor.

He's married to someone that practices Homeopathy.

But he's still one heck of a great skeptic and supporter of JREF.

I know 2 people on this forum that totally believe in some form of ghosts. Not UFOs, not religion, not even God. But some sort of "energy" that lasts after death. I totally disagree, but hey they are still good skeptics!

It's hard to find anyone anytime 100% skeptic or not.

[Gurdur]

Isn't that a clinical condition, signifying a sick mind?
M.
Naw, that would be self-righteous bigotry that signifies a sick mind.

[Gurdur]

It's hard to find anyone anytime 100% skeptic or not.
Bingo.
In fact, it's impossible. Humans are not "rational"; they can use reason to greater or lesser extents, but a fully rational human is impossible. That goes even more so for skepticism; take skepticism too far and you're left with inactive narcissism. Skepticism is a tool, not an end. Ditto with reason overall.

[Gurdur]

.... to be a Sceptic with a capital S you need to....
Oh dear, oh dearie me. Show me one human who doesn't have some irrational --- or non-rational --- beliefs, and I'll show you a cadaver. And BTW, it gets unpleasantly dogmatic once people start talking about the Church Of Sceptics With A Capital S.

Just wondering: who gets to set the examination criteria, and do we get to examine them?

[Ivor the Engineer]

well Ivor, you just made up some interesting definitions.

Happy Birthday Kittynh. I hope you have/had a wonderful day.

You can only class yourself a Sceptic if you are prepared to be consistent with your scepticism to testable beliefs you hold.

I'd say that skeptic or believer...there are a lot more ways to define a "good or bad" person or perhaps "thinker" than those two.

I don’t remember saying anything about being a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ person. Personally I try to judge people on their (reported) actions over a period of time, not on labels assigned to them by others or themselves.

I wasn’t trying to define anyone with those two definitions. They were definitions of what beliefs I think you are required to hold to attribute those labels to yourself. Please feel free to offer alternate definitions.

A skeptic or a believer that is intolerant, and practices willfull prejudice and is threatening and superior ("I believe in God and am going to heaven while you burn, hahaha, oh and since you are so stupid I can practice genocide on you...") is perhaps not a very nice person.

I agree. They would not be a very nice person.

Any label, any simple label that is, can not define WHAT kind of person you are. It can only define one part of who you are.

Yes, all labels are over simplistic to define an individuals character. Humans do have a (bad?) habit of reducing people to a collection of simple labels. E.g. “X is a Stutter” instead of “X is a person who stutters.”

oh and one of our most popular skeptic speakers, goes to a chiropractor.

Presumably he does not believe the unsupported claims made by some chiropractors.

He's married to someone that practices Homeopathy.

So what?

But he's still one heck of a great skeptic and supporter of JREF.

I don’t see how the fact he goes to a chiropractor and has a wife who presumably thinks she cures people with water and sugar pills would stop him being a Sceptic, unless he actually believes the unsupported claims of chiropractors and that his wife really does cure people with water and sugar pills!

I know 2 people on this forum that totally believe in some form of ghosts. Not UFOs, not religion, not even God. But some sort of "energy" that lasts after death. I totally disagree, but hey they are still good skeptics!

They may be sceptical of many things but they are not Sceptics if they ignore the total lack of scientific evidence for that belief.

It's hard to find anyone anytime 100% skeptic or not.

I agree. It is far easier and often more emotionally satisfying to ignore evidence and to keep hold of irrational beliefs.

[Wowbagger]

Christian: A believer in the teachings of and miracles performed by Jesus Christ. That's all of them, not just cherry picking the nice ones or taking them out of context to make them acceptable by today’s moral or scientific standards.That's a very strict definition. I think a lot of Christians are willing to cherry-pick a bit, and still call themselves Christians. Only some of them treat the Bible as completely "inerrant".

[Ivor the Engineer]

Oh dear, oh dearie me. Show me one human who doesn't have some irrational --- or non-rational --- beliefs, and I'll show you a cadaver. And BTW, it gets unpleasantly dogmatic once people start talking about the Church Of Sceptics With A Capital S.

It’s not holding any particular belief that ultimately stops you being a Sceptic. It’s refusing to apply scepticism to a testable belief and drop or change it if it is not supported or shown to be incorrect. I.e. The refusal to use the process of scepticism for certain testable beliefs or of the result of the test.

That is the basis for a lot of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), where the therapist gets the patient to challenge their beliefs about themselves, others, an object or situation, to get a more rational view of themselves, others, an object or situation and ultimately feel better or regain control.

Just wondering: who gets to set the examination criteria, and do we get to examine them?

The examination occurs when a belief they hold is challenged and shown to be incorrect. If they can change or drop the belief then they continue to be considered Sceptics. If they cannot then they simply become sceptical of some or many things.

They do not become a bad person, stupid or an outcast. They can still think sceptically about other topics. They are just not a Sceptic.

I did not talk about a ‘Church of Sceptics With a Capital S’. The use of a capital was to differentiate between someone who does not make exceptions for some testable beliefs they hold when presented with evidence that the belief is incorrect or unsupported and someone who does.

[kittynh]

well, I would say the dude does use a chiropractor!

But I rather think finding the perfect skeptic would be like finding the perfect Xian. I think Ghandi once said, "the day I meet a perfect Xian is the day I convert!" (well something like that!).

I still know people that can get into a fight (as at TAM) on if a REAL TRUE skeptic recycles. Recycling means buying into the belief, and then you aren't a skeptic. I kind of got lost at some point watching these 4 skeptics go at it. Because what if you recycle because you are required to, but you KNOW it doesn't do any good? And what about those idiots that still think recycling does do good? Oh yeah, well what about that episode of B*llsh*t?

Beer and skepticism makes for a good drama.

Reminds me also of the Chocolate vs. No Chocolate debate among Mormons. I'm not sure their God really is that worried about it. But they sure are.

[yodaluver28]

Christian: A believer in the teachings of and miracles performed by Jesus Christ. That's all of them, not just cherry picking the nice ones or taking them out of context to make them acceptable by today’s moral or scientific standards.

I largely agree with this statement, but I don't tend to count as Christians people who call themselves that but act the exact opposite from the principles preached by Jesus himself. They're self-righteous hypocrites, not Christians and sadly there seem to be alot of those these days.

Deist: A believer in a supernatural entity that created the universe and that is all it did. I.e. it does not affect or interfere in its creation in any way.

I would except that you can (just about) be a Sceptic and a Deist, but you can definitely not be a Sceptic and a Christian. ‘Sceptical Christian’ is an oxymoron.

You can be sceptical of lots of things and believe in anything you like. However, to be a Sceptic with a capital S you need to apply scepticism too all your beliefs that could possibly be tested.

But can religion truly be tested, that's the big question. I don't think it can be. You could prove or disprove certainly scientific or historical statements that are written as fact in a holy book, but you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a deity. It simply cannot be done. Any deity that might exist would exist in an realm that science cannot measure or quantify. The faithful know this and accept it. Therefore skepticism doesn't enter into the equation. They accept something on faith knowing that it can't be proven or disproven because that faith gives them something in return. That something might be comfort, moral guidance, a sense of community, or any of many other things.

Christianity along with all the other major religions I’m aware of has plenty of those, which modern (or not so modern) science has shown to be wrong.


The Bible, and other holy books, weren't intended as science textbooks. Many of the things written in sacred texts, such as the various creation myths, are just that: myths used to explain something that at the time they were written people couldn't yet understand but sought some sort of explanation for. Many of those myths, including The Great Flood of Noah, are also allegorical so they actually retain meaning even if the fact of a particular event is disproven. It was probably written about a horrible local flood that was so big it was presumed to be global and Noah and his family were used in the story as a moral allegory. If Biblical literalists choose to believe that it literally happened exactly as written that's their choice, but they'd be wrong. Most of the ancients never even pretended that many of these events actually occurred. Biblical literalism is a fairly recent phenomenon, at least on the scale that we're seeing it now.

Once you accept that even one of the testable claims made in a particular religion is false then you are no longer a believer in that religion. You either have faith in a religion or you don’t; I'm 92% Christian doesn't cut it.


There just isn't anything about religion that is testable in any conventional way. You're also presuming that all Christians would take every word of the Bible as literal, both scientifically and historically when in fact many do not. Therefore for certain "facts" to be proven wrong doesn't change the main thesis or meaning. Many Christians are also nowhere near as dogmatic as evangelicals, fundamentalists, or hardline Catholics. It's not about being "92% Christian", it's about following your own conscience while guided by faith.

[cgallaga]

Well first of all I think I may smell straw. We in this community tend to paint anything we consider woo with a supernatural label and anything we think of as scientific as just not yet understood...outside our current scope of understanding. This is a form of shifting the goal posts.

All that said and done: Skepticism is a position of doubt about knowledge...claims of fact. One can have beliefs (we all do) that are not supported by enough evidence to be claims of fact, to hold the weight of knowledge, and still be entirely skeptical. One can know that their own experience gives them reason to believe in a particular position but being a skeptic refuse to make a claim of fact about that.

Do you love someone? Can you prove that empirically, or is it a subjective belief? Do you have pain? Can you prove the pain? Or is it a subjective response to some other event? Even though you can't prove your pain or its level are you being un-skeptical to claim you have an ache? If you get in your car to drive from point A to Point B and you have three routs you can reasonably take. You will choose a rout (1. 2. 3.) based on what you believe to be the best possible choice. Maybe you like the scenery of a particular route, maybe you believe it will be faster that way, the most efficient, whatever. You do not wait until the three routs are empirically tested before you depart. You act on your belief. Are you less of a skeptic because you do so?

And many of our recent claims of fact about the universe are so counter intuitive that they would certainly have been labeled as supernatural in times gone by. Einstein purposely used the word spooky to describe quantum entanglement because he thought the belief (as it was then) was a bunch of woo-woo. Now that bizarre feature of quanta has been tested enough that we can claim it as a statement of fact. Supernatural is a label, it can be used to describe things we don't know how they could happen given the natural laws we understand. But it may be that our understanding of the laws is faulty or incomplete in such a way that certain phenomena appear to be the stuff of woo-woo.

I find the kind of ad hominem position of shouting "woo-woo" or "that's just supernatural mumbo-jumbo" to be as non-skeptical as someone who believes aliens come down in flying saucers and mate with his wife.

Back to the point: Skepticism is a way of evaluating and doubting statements of fact, not a way of operating free from belief. One could probably argue that it is impossible to operate free from beliefs.

[Gurdur]

It’s not holding any particular belief that ultimately stops you being a Sceptic. It’s refusing to apply scepticism to a testable belief and drop or change it if it is not supported or shown to be incorrect. I.e. The refusal to use the process of scepticism for certain testable beliefs or of the result of the test..
Fine, let's look at one of your beliefs then, skeptically.
Christian: A believer in the teachings of and miracles performed by Jesus Christ. That's all of them, not just cherry picking the nice ones or taking them out of context to make them acceptable by today’s moral or scientific standards......Once you accept that even one of the testable claims made in a particular religion is false then you are no longer a believer in that religion. You either have faith in a religion or you don’t; I'm 92% Christian doesn't cut it..
This quite frankly is nonsense; it's equivalent to walking into the Republican Party Convention and telling them they are only True Republicans ® if they comply to a list of criteria you have, even though you are not a Republican.
Christians define themselves as a group, not according to the criteria you lay out; many Christians pay no attention to the supposed miracles, or the alleged virgin birth, and some don't even pay much mind to the resurrection, yet they still class themselves as Christians and are often classed by other Christians as still belonging.
.....They are just not a Sceptic.

I did not talk about a ‘Church of Sceptics With a Capital S’. The use of a capital was to differentiate between someone who does not make exceptions for some testable beliefs they hold when presented with evidence that the belief is incorrect or unsupported and someone who does.
And you lay out very unrealistic criteria for just what constitutes a "Sceptic". Since you're in a group of one, your definition carries no practical weight; since it's only yet another subjective opinion revolving around semantics and only utilises personal biases, it carries no theoretical weight either. If you tried claiming that this definition of yours then had any objective weight, that would be quite irrational of you. Trying to fix criteria for what makes a True Sceptic ® in your eyes is doomed to be counter-productive in terms of actually getting skepticism more publically well-known, accepted and implemented.

[Apathia]

You can be sceptical of lots of things and believe in anything you like. However, to be a Sceptic with a capital S you need to apply scepticism too all your beliefs that could possibly be tested.

Well, I do apply skeptical questioning to my beliefs. I haven't been a Christian Theist for a couple of decades now, though I was still an Episopalian till before I moved this year.
But somehow, I just can't place myself under the Skeptic lable. Not because I have any Christainity to hold me back, but for a lot of the same reason I could no longer identify myself as a Christian. Something in me would rather be called a "woo," if I were expected to be a purist Skeptic.

If this were a "Skeptics" only board, then I wouldn't feel I had any more place here than at a woo-woo or conservative Christain Board.

I shy away from all ideologies.

[Azure]

Wow Randfan, I'm just like you. ;)

[Antiquehunter]

Do you love someone? Can you prove that empirically, or is it a subjective belief? Do you have pain? Can you prove the pain? Or is it a subjective response to some other event? Even though you can't prove your pain or its level are you being un-skeptical to claim you have an ache?
to be the stuff of woo-woo.


I believe that an MRI would show different brain activity in my noggin if you showed me images of people/things I 'love' (my partner, my cats etc...) vs images of things I am indifferent to (an AMC Gremlin, a $5 bill), or conversely, hate (Hitler, brussels sprouts).

Likewise, I bet my MRI would reveal different activity if you were tickling my foot vs massaging it vs jabbing it with a pointy object.

Therefore, I suggest that there is empirical evidence for emotional responses such as love and pain.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seems to me, Randfan, you are selectively skeptical. You pick and choose what you think requires evidence. But you also select certain evidence over other evidence with a less than objective reason for choosing. We all do that to some degree, it's human nature. But there is a point where the degree with which one chooses which evidence to consider and which to reject, that the term skeptic no longer applies.

Also, such selective preference for some evidence over other evidence no longer reflects a skeptic when the line is drawn and no amount of evidence will change one's conclusions.

Science is a process, not a conclusion. If one accepts an evidence based world, one must be willing to give up "faith based beliefs" when the evidence is overwhelmingly against those beliefs being valid.

Skeptics who accept both a faith based world and an evidence based world are living with cognitive dissonance. Why do they continue? Because that "faith based belief" has one of those failsafe mechanisms. To question one's belief in gods when all the evidence supports the conclusion gods are myths questions faith. And faith is the key belief.

I ask you, under such circumstances, if there are no gods, how would someone who has established the belief that faith is the reason to believe ever accept the evidence before them?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well first of all I think I may smell straw. We in this community tend to paint anything we consider woo with a supernatural label and anything we think of as scientific as just not yet understood...outside our current scope of understanding. This is a form of shifting the goal posts.No it isn't, that's nonsense. First, things which have not yet been discovered are not "outside" the scope of understanding. Outside implies we will never get there. 'We will never get there' applies to outside the Universe and prior to the Big Bang. Science accepts the fact there are certain things for which there is no conceivable way to collect evidence. No goal posts have ever been shifted in this concept.

The concept some things are outside the realm of science is always used to describe "gods" as being outside the realm of science. A god which doesn't interact with the Universe or a god which covers its tracks so as to be undetectable is outside of the realm of science. But in reality, the claims people actually make about gods are not outside of science and are indeed within the realm of things science can investigate.

We can test the effectiveness of prayer. It fails the test. We can look at the history of religion. Evidence points to beliefs being man-made constructs. We can compare religions. There is no basis for claims any religion is more likely to represent a real god or gods than any other religion.

There is no double standard as you mistakenly imply.

All that said and done: Skepticism is a position of doubt about knowledge...claims of fact. One can have beliefs (we all do) that are not supported by enough evidence to be claims of fact, to hold the weight of knowledge, and still be entirely skeptical. One can know that their own experience gives them reason to believe in a particular position but being a skeptic refuse to make a claim of fact about that.To claim skepticism is all about doubt is to only see one side of skepticism. Skepticism is about belief in an evidence based world. That's the one point where belief comes in. Once you conclude the best way to understand the world is to actually observe it, you have science and not faith as your guiding premise. But that doesn't mean you function without ever drawing conclusions. I can leave the door open on anything for new evidence, but until such new evidence is apparent, there are many things I've concluded in the meantime. And there are many things I'm careful to note the evidence is not yet conclusive.

As to "own experience" while that means all the evidence I have discovered in my lifetime, I'm reluctant to use the terminology as you've put it because so many people are falsely convinced by personal experiences they have mis-applied evidentiary weight to. Personal experience which has led to false conclusions is one of the biggest problems in woo beliefs.

Do you love someone? Can you prove that empirically, or is it a subjective belief? Do you have pain? Can you prove the pain? Or is it a subjective response to some other event? Even though you can't prove your pain or its level are you being un-skeptical to claim you have an ache? If you get in your car to drive from point A to Point B and you have three routs you can reasonably take. You will choose a rout (1. 2. 3.) based on what you believe to be the best possible choice. Maybe you like the scenery of a particular route, maybe you believe it will be faster that way, the most efficient, whatever. You do not wait until the three routs are empirically tested before you depart. You act on your belief. Are you less of a skeptic because you do so?Here is more fallacious application of science and evidence to everyday activities of our lives. I drive my car. I don't do a scientific analysis of all the aspects of road rage of the guy tailgating me or how I'm very good at finding new destinations. I get in my car and drive.

By the same token we meet someone and either feel a kinship or raging hormones, take your pick. We may commit to a lifetime with them or get married and divorced when it doesn't work out and try again. But if I wanted to look at love with the scientific process, I most certainly could. We'd probably be better off if we knew more about what makes a good partner and how some people manage to stay together while others don't. The scientific process can give us much better guidance than our typical trial and error approach.

And many of our recent claims of fact about the universe are so counter intuitive that they would certainly have been labeled as supernatural in times gone by. Einstein purposely used the word spooky to describe quantum entanglement because he thought the belief (as it was then) was a bunch of woo-woo. Now that bizarre feature of quanta has been tested enough that we can claim it as a statement of fact. Supernatural is a label, it can be used to describe things we don't know how they could happen given the natural laws we understand. But it may be that our understanding of the laws is faulty or incomplete in such a way that certain phenomena appear to be the stuff of woo-woo.You are confusing the mysteries of the world which we have discovered by the evidence and mysteries people just make up. There's a big difference.

I find the kind of ad hominem position of shouting "woo-woo" or "that's just supernatural mumbo-jumbo" to be as non-skeptical as someone who believes aliens come down in flying saucers and mate with his wife.This is not what skeptics do. Skeptics would say the evidence does not support that conclusion. If you think skeptics just reject claims they perceive as woo, you miss the whole point about the scientific process and evidence.

Back to the point: Skepticism is a way of evaluating and doubting statements of fact, not a way of operating free from belief. One could probably argue that it is impossible to operate free from beliefs.No, you couldn't be more wrong here. Skepticism is a belief (and that's the only place belief comes in) that the world can best be understood by careful observation and by using the scientific process to collect evidence which reveals it. Conclusions are drawn from that evidence. But the difference between a conclusion and a belief is a conclusion is supported by evidence and when additional evidence suggests an alternative conclusion, one accepts the alternative.

That isn't to say there are perfect skeptics free from errors in conclusions or free from underlying beliefs which interfere with interpretation of evidence. That much I'll give you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Christians define themselves as a group, not according to the criteria you lay out; many Christians pay no attention to the supposed miracles, or the alleged virgin birth, and some don't even pay much mind to the resurrection, yet they still class themselves as Christians and are often classed by other Christians as still belonging.
....You are correct. Too bad many Christians don't believe the same thing. Republicans know they are not all the same and they aren't likely to profess one mindset. Christians on the other hand, are more likely to believe they are following a religion which is "the" religion. They may erroneously believe all Christians are more homogeneous than they actually are or they may feel they have the "true" beliefs and even other Christians are wrong.

I don't disagree that regardless of the variation, people who believe they are Christians are what they say. But when your premise is that there is a god behind it all, it does lose a lot of credibility to have a million variations.

[Antiquehunter]

Let's take water into wine, just to keep it simple. First, let's not confuse the claimed occurrence of the incident with any possible mechanism. The implied claim is that a miracle occurred; that is, that physical law was suspended. That immediately removes the incident from the scientific sphere. Can physical law be suspended? I suggest that that proposition may be falsifiable, but I strongly question its testability.

Are there ways to turn water into wine that remain within physical law? That is another question, entirely.

Well Beady, again, I think that there is a certain grasping going on here with this perspective. If something/someone can suspend a physical law, then this puts all our scientific learning to this point at question. As such, this is a scientific question that can (and should - if evidence was ever such that physical laws get suspended on the apparent whim of something/someone/an entity) be examined scientifically. To suggest that when 'god' intervenes, immediately science cannot look at the situation is a bit slippery.

I'll reiterate - I don't think it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to be a deist and to examine life in a skeptical manner.

I think for a deist like Hal or Martin Gardner (as much as I know Mr. Gardner - I have had long conversations with Hal - I think I get his position much more clearly) it is quite plausible to describe a system of beliefs that fully supports skepticism.

I think that when people hold beliefs consistent with any religious doctrine of which I am somewhat aware (Christianity in a number of flavours, Judaism in the sense to which I understand it, Islam etc...) that they need to make very careful definitions and 'compartments' as you put it about what they are electing to examine skeptically and what they are looking at with a wilful suspension of a skeptical approach. This can be accomplished by saying 'I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in A,B,C or in X,Y,Z - and maybe those bits over there E,F,G & H are merely parables or myths meant to portray a concept...' - and if you and your god are OK with this sort of definition, then I'm hip to your funky jive. I would point out that it is curious that one can pick and choose the 'right' and the 'wrong' bits out of the doctrine, but I don't profess to be a theologian. Not impossible - just very, very difficult.

While I have tremendous respect for Mr. Gould, I really cannot buy into the notion of NOMA. I think the Dawkinsian approach is much more intellectually honest. Brutal perhaps, but honest.

[The Atheist]

Good thread, RandFan, thanks.

I raised this point in Macrina's welcome thread and got my head bitten off for it.

A person cannot be both a sceptic and a christian. I think the mistake being made at the "separation of physical and metaphysical" is that there is any separation at all. The God Delusion neatly covers the social construct of religion and we are pretty sure that god and all the angels are only inside our little heady-weddies. Not applying scepticism to religion is pure doublethink and self-delusion.

To be in a position of not applying scepticism to those most childish beliefs negates the chance being a sceptic, no matter what description or parameters are used. People who apply scepticism selectively are somewhat sceptical, but hardly "sceptics".

I'm on record as supporting people with christian beliefs, and am quite happy for them to hold those beliefs as dearly as they like - as long as they don't try to sell them to me. But they cannot call themselves "sceptics". I think it was tkingdoll who suggested that the question wouldn't be being debated if the person were an astrologer, reiki master or homeopath. She's right.

[Antiquehunter]

Just to fan the flames a bit... I'll post this excerpt from the Skeptical Manifesto, available here:

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html

A hypothesis and theory may be contrasted with a construct: a non-testable statement to account for a set of observations. The observation of living organisms on Earth may be accounted for by God or by evolution. The first statement is a construct, the second a theory. Most biologists would even call evolution a fact by the above definition.

Through the scientific method we aim for objectivity: the basing of conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: the basing of conclusions on personal insights that lack external validation. There is nothing wrong with personal insight. Many great scientists have attributed important ideas to insight, intuition, and other equally difficult-to-define concepts. Alfred Wallace said that the idea of natural selection “suddenly flashed upon” him during an attack of malaria. Timothy Ferris called Einstein, “the great intuitive artist of science.” But insightful and intuitive ideas do not gain acceptance until they are externally validated, as Richard Hardison explained (1988, p. 259-260):

Mystical “truths,” by their nature, must be solely personal, and they can have no possible external validation. Each has equal claim to truth. Tea leaf reading and astrology and Buddhism; each is equally sound or unsound if we judge by the absence of related evidence. This is not intended to disparage any one of the faiths; merely to note the impossibility of verifying their correctness. The mystic is in a paradoxical position. When he seeks external support for his views he must turn to external arguments, and he denies mysticism in the process. External validation is, by definition, impossible for the mystic.

[Beady]

I believe that an MRI would show different brain activity in my noggin if you showed me images of people/things I 'love' (my partner, my cats etc...)

My emphasis.

Do you know that an MRI would show this? Have you actually investigated this? Or are you taking it on unquestioning faith?

[Antiquehunter]

Well, I'm not a doctor, and I have no access to an MRI machine (as cool as that would be). However, my belief is based on the numerous reports that support observing a different response in patients when exposed to various images. This suggests that there is a preponderance of evidence that supports my 'belief'. There are a number of published papers on this topic - again, empirical evidence which supports my 'belief'.

I'll provide a linky to one such report, but a quick Google refers to a large number of similar papers.

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/161/12/2245

[valis]

Good thread, RandFan, thanks.

I raised this point in Macrina's welcome thread and got my head bitten off for it.

A person cannot be both a sceptic and a christian. I think the mistake being made at the "separation of physical and metaphysical" is that there is any separation at all. The God Delusion neatly covers the social construct of religion and we are pretty sure that god and all the angels are only inside our little heady-weddies. Not applying scepticism to religion is pure doublethink and self-delusion.

To be in a position of not applying scepticism to those most childish beliefs negates the chance being a sceptic, no matter what description or parameters are used. People who apply scepticism selectively are somewhat sceptical, but hardly "sceptics".

I'm on record as supporting people with christian beliefs, and am quite happy for them to hold those beliefs as dearly as they like - as long as they don't try to sell them to me. But they cannot call themselves "sceptics". I think it was tkingdoll who suggested that the question wouldn't be being debated if the person were an astrologer, reiki master or homeopath. She's right.

The only truly skeptical viewpoint, IMO, would be to say "there is no way to know and therefore I make no judgment what so ever." Most of the people I talk to tend to lean in one degree or another towards a hypothesis that suits them.

Many "skeptics" say there is no evidence I can see of God therefore I tend to believe there is no God. That is no different than my saying I tend to lean towards a belief in God for my own personal reasons. They are both equal beliefs.

Some may say Christianity is childish; although it is quite big of you to allow people to believe in it should they choose to.

I think that some people cling to the belief that everything is knowable and explainable out of a personal need for control and certainty. But we all have our reasons to believe what we do; just because I disagree with someone I would not call them childish.

[Ivor the Engineer]

well, I would say the dude does use a chiropractor!

But I rather think finding the perfect skeptic would be like finding the perfect Xian. I think Ghandi once said, "the day I meet a perfect Xian is the day I convert!" (well something like that!).

Well, I’ll probably be flying to New York in September, so if you feel ready to convert by then come along and meet me:)

I still know people that can get into a fight (as at TAM) on if a REAL TRUE skeptic recycles. Recycling means buying into the belief, and then you aren't a skeptic. I kind of got lost at some point watching these 4 skeptics go at it. Because what if you recycle because you are required to, but you KNOW it doesn't do any good? And what about those idiots that still think recycling does do good? Oh yeah, well what about that episode of B*llsh*t?

I’ve just spent the last 10 minutes thinking that ‘recycling’ was some strange and unknown to me debating technique frowned upon by Sceptics.:o :D

Asche did a number of experiments showing how people conform, even when they know others are incorrect. Interestingly, one participant who did not conform on the longest line length experiment was an engineer. You are confusing what a person believes with the actions they perform.

Beer and skepticism makes for a good drama.

Enough beer and any topic make for good drama.

Reminds me also of the Chocolate vs. No Chocolate debate among Mormons. I'm not sure their God really is that worried about it. But they sure are.

I knew nothing of this! A religion exists that has something to say about chocolate. Does it state how it has to be prepared or unwrapped? Is milk chocolate considered impure?

[Antiquehunter]

The only truly skeptical viewpoint, IMO, would be to say "there is no way to know and therefore I make no judgment what so ever." Most of the people I talk to tend to lean in one degree or another towards a hypothesis that suits them.

Many "skeptics" say there is no evidence I can see of God therefore I tend to believe there is no God. That is no different than my saying I tend to lean towards a belief in God for my own personal reasons. They are both equal beliefs.

Some may say Christianity is childish; although it is quite big of you to allow people to believe in it should they choose to.

I think that some people cling to the belief that everything is knowable and explainable out of a personal need for control and certainty. But we all have our reasons to believe what we do; just because I disagree with someone I would not call them childish.

While my personal approach is somewhat kindler and gentler than that of The Atheist, I would like to raise one point with your response, Valis.

There is a major distinction - for me, anyways - between a non-specific theist POV (call it Bidlackianism for lack of a better word) vs. a set of beliefs that begin to make statements that may be falsifiable and testable.

I agree with you (tentatively) when you say: "Many "skeptics" say there is no evidence I can see of God therefore I tend to believe there is no God. That is no different than my saying I tend to lean towards a belief in God for my own personal reasons. They are both equal beliefs."

However - when the believer starts to have quantifiable beliefs about their 'god', characteristics such as responsiveness to prayer, performing miracles, active involvement in creation etc... then the application of skepticism enters the question.

[articulett]

Simple.

Traditional deference to god beliefs that is strongly engrained in our cultures. It is simply more acceptable by virtue of its acceptance at large. I imagine much the same thing would happen if UFO worship was large, long lived and organised.

Plus, people play fast and loose with the "god definition"--I've heard god describes as "love", "isness", the "prime observer", "what science doesn't know yet", "nature", "energy"--and then there are all the anthropomorphic gods with all sorts of qualities-- all-loving, omniscient, vengeful, etc.

How are you supposed to deny a god that is "isness"? Or "love"? It sounds sort of like a security blanket "god" to me. And belief is a mercurial quality--how do you know what someone "believes" and how much they "believe" it (unless it's tested--for example, we can presume the hijackers really believed in their god and all the traits ascribed to him because they died fighting for him...) And can a person make themselves believe or not believe something?

Religions tell you that you need "god" for salvation, morality, purpose, to pass "the test", etc.--and they tell you this stuff pretty young. I think it's just too hard for some people to let go of that belief. They feel safer believing or saying that they do even if their god is meaningless as far as reality is concerned.

I prefer it when people keep their beliefs and opinions about gods to themselves...it really bugs me when they speak as though their god was a fact--moreso, when they presume I agree--a million times moreso when they feel they must convert (probably to prop up their own flailing beliefs)-- if god is all knowing he already knows how it's all going to turn out; and if he's omnipotent, he's perfectly capable of converting me and everyone else on his own. Moreover, if someone believes that my lack of belief will cause me to suffer for eternity, then the least they can do, is to leave me in peace before I anguish forever.
:)

I am both amused and perturbed by people who come to skeptic forums and lash out at skeptics for being skeptical. Yet, they are fun to toss verbal barbs at-- I find it reduces tension.

I'm fine with believers, but I prefer they keep it to themselves, the way atheists are expected to keep their lack of belief to themselves in "polite society". Maybe, "don't ask; don't tell" when amongst skeptics would be a good warning--

[The Atheist]

Many "skeptics" say there is no evidence I can see of God therefore I tend to believe there is no God. That is no different than my saying I tend to lean towards a belief in God for my own personal reasons. They are both equal beliefs.

What Antiquehunter said, but I add:

That would be an entirely un-christian belief, as I see it.

Christians, by their very nature, must believe in a central tenet; Jesus is the son of god. If they don't believe that, they are not christians, despite whatever name they may choose to bestow on themselves.

That belief alone cannot be subject to any serious scepticism, else it will fail. It means that god has moved from a deist, non-intervening-god, to a specific god which can and does have physical effects and presence in the universe. Accordingly, the physical laws of the universe are not finite and knowable and every single one is subject to change at the whim of god.

"Leaning towards belief" sits fine with being a sceptic; saying, "I love Jesus" does not.

I actually doubt that many atheists or sceptics demand that god does not exist. Those who do, as you suggest, are probably being as un-sceptical as christians.

[Slimething]

Plus, people play fast and loose with the "god definition"--I've heard god describes as "love", "isness", the "prime observer", "what science doesn't know yet", "nature", "energy"--and then there are all the anthropomorphic gods with all sorts of qualities-- all-loving, omniscient, vengeful, etc.

How are you supposed to deny a god that is "isness"? Or "love"?

Well stated. I hate labels applied to humans because people are so multi-layered in their philosophies that painting them as liberal, conservative, christian, atheist, etc., is very often misleading. Anyway, I often describe myself as an agnostic to people who ask me about my religious views for the exact principle stated so well by articulett.

If those questioners are christian and they press me, they soon become very disappointed in the fact that, to them, I am a strong atheist (based on disproved claims and self-contradictions in their bible and tenets).

[The Atheist]

Plus, people play fast and loose with the "god definition"--I've heard god describes as "love", "isness", the "prime observer", "what science doesn't know yet", "nature", "energy"--and then there are all the anthropomorphic gods with all sorts of qualities-- all-loving, omniscient, vengeful, etc.

Fancy you, of all people, not being able to read the OP and heading.

It says, quite clearly, "christian", so you go on to build a few strawmen.

Nice argument, just happens to be totally irrelevant.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The only truly skeptical viewpoint, IMO, would be to say "there is no way to know and therefore I make no judgment what so ever." Most of the people I talk to tend to lean in one degree or another towards a hypothesis that suits them.

Many "skeptics" say there is no evidence I can see of God therefore I tend to believe there is no God. That is no different than my saying I tend to lean towards a belief in God for my own personal reasons. They are both equal beliefs.

Some may say Christianity is childish; although it is quite big of you to allow people to believe in it should they choose to.

I think that some people cling to the belief that everything is knowable and explainable out of a personal need for control and certainty. But we all have our reasons to believe what we do; just because I disagree with someone I would not call them childish.I can't speak for other skeptics but this claim ignores my perspective in favor of one you can more easily find weakness in.

It is my premise that the evidence for all gods described by humans points to gods being a human construct. There is no evidence real gods were the source of human belief in gods. The evidence supports 'no gods'. That is different from saying there is no evidence.

Also, most every description of gods claim the gods interact with the Universe such as answering prayers. All tests to verify such claims have failed to detect any 'god effects'. Again, while absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, nonetheless, this absence does support the 'no god' hypothesis and at the very least refutes the particular claim being tested.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Side note: Don't believe everything you see on Bu|| Sh!+. The recycling episode was quite controversial. Not all costs were taken into account when comparing cost-benefit, for example some waste is shipped quite long distances increasing the cost of not recycling. There is a long thread or two on that episode.

[CFLarsen]

Side note: Don't believe everything you see on Bu|| Sh!+. The recycling episode was quite controversial. Not all costs were taken into account when comparing cost-benefit, for example some waste is shipped quite long distances increasing the cost of not recycling. There is a long thread or two on that episode.

To Penn & Teller's credit, they did acknowledge that they were wrong about 2nd hand smoking.

[HarryKeogh]

Side note: Don't believe everything you see on Bu|| Sh!+. The recycling episode was quite controversial. Not all costs were taken into account when comparing cost-benefit, for example some waste is shipped quite long distances increasing the cost of not recycling. There is a long thread or two on that episode.

I wish they would take a page from the Mythbusters book and do a show correcting mistakes they've made. Telling a roomful of skeptics at TAM that there were mistakes on your second-hand smoking episode reaches only a tiny fraction of the people that saw the episode.

If you make a big mistake on your show you should correct it on your show.

[Moochie]

Many "skeptics" say there is no evidence I can see of God therefore I tend to believe there is no God. That is no different than my saying I tend to lean towards a belief in God for my own personal reasons. They are both equal beliefs.

What a crock of BS. The "equality" you speak of is your own invention, just as your god is.

M.

[Azure]

Christians, by their very nature, must believe in a central tenet; Jesus is the son of god. If they don't believe that, they are not christians, despite whatever name they may choose to bestow on themselves.



Thank you.

Finally someone mentions something right about the Christian faith.

Even the Jews believe in the miracles that Jesus preformed, turned water into wine, etc, etc....but they do NOT believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

Therefore, believing in the miracles and works of Jesus Christ is NOT the central aspect of the Christian faith.

[Miss Anthrope]

Thank you.

Finally someone mentions something right about the Christian faith.

Even the Jews believe in the miracles that Jesus preformed, turned water into wine, etc, etc....but they do NOT believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

Therefore, believing in the miracles and works of Jesus Christ is NOT the central aspect of the Christian faith.

Ummm, ethnic Jew here. Where are the Jews that believe this?

[RandFan]

Side note: Don't believe everything you see on Bu|| Sh!+. The recycling episode was quite controversial. Not all costs were taken into account when comparing cost-benefit, for example some waste is shipped quite long distances increasing the cost of not recycling. There is a long thread or two on that episode. But that episode was not without a point. I live in an area where waste is not shipped long distances.

In any event, Penn & Teller are trying to get people to think critically. To question held assumptions. I'm willing to bet a months income that they would hold in contempt anyone who accepts what they say as gospel. That kind of misses the point of Bulls hit.

[quixotecoyote]

Thank you.

Finally someone mentions something right about the Christian faith.

Even the Jews believe in the miracles that Jesus preformed, turned water into wine, etc, etc....but they do NOT believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

Therefore, believing in the miracles and works of Jesus Christ is NOT the central aspect of the Christian faith.

Not even all Christians believe Jesus was the son of god, see Gnostic Christians: http://members.tripod.com/cryskernan/gnostic_jesus.htm .

When it comes down to it, saying you're Christian is meaningless without a good deal of further detail. It's a vague term with dozens if not hundereds of sectarian interpretations even before considering the personal twist most believers put on it for their own beliefs.

[The Atheist]

Not even all Christians believe Jesus was the son of god, see Gnostic Christians: http://members.tripod.com/cryskernan/gnostic_jesus.htm .

When it comes down to it, saying you're Christian is meaningless without a good deal of further detail. It's a vague term with dozens if not hundereds of sectarian interpretations even before considering the personal twist most believers put on it for their own beliefs.

No, that's not right at all.

As I said, people may call themselves christian, but they aren't. Pointing out a tiny sect which likes to use the term is a joke. Christ of god was prophesied before Jesus and his life was the proof of the prophesy. Christians may argue about whether the ressurrection was bodily or spiritual, or lots of other things, but the one trait all actual christians hold is that JC was god's son.

Says so in the bible, it must be true.

John 3:16

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wish they would take a page from the Mythbusters book and do a show correcting mistakes they've made. Telling a roomful of skeptics at TAM that there were mistakes on your second-hand smoking episode reaches only a tiny fraction of the people that saw the episode.

If you make a big mistake on your show you should correct it on your show.If I recall they totally copped out at TAM, saying they didn't own the show, they just performed in it.

If you paid me a bunch of money, I'd probably do likewise. Oh well.

[Skeptic Ginger]

But that episode was not without a point. I live in an area where waste is not shipped long distances.

In any event, Penn & Teller are trying to get people to think critically. To question held assumptions. I'm willing to bet a months income that they would hold in contempt anyone who accepts what they say as gospel. That kind of misses the point of Bulls hit.I'm all for critical thinking and don't discount all the information in that episode. And I encourage people to not take my word for it in classes I teach (different subject but critical thinking and the scientific process is always in my introduction).

I happen to live in a city that encourages recycling. When this issue came up I looked into our programs. After all, it was my taxes. The city makes a good case for the cost effectiveness of the programs here. But it's always good to be reminded peace, love, and understanding don't automatically mean good things.

[quixotecoyote]

No, that's not right at all.

As I said, people may call themselves christian, but they aren't. Pointing out a tiny sect which likes to use the term is a joke. Christ of god was prophesied before Jesus and his life was the proof of the prophesy. Christians may argue about whether the ressurrection was bodily or spiritual, or lots of other things, but the one trait all actual christians hold is that JC was god's son.

Says so in the bible, it must be true.

John 3:16

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or actually going "No True Scotsman"'ing

[Beady]

That would be an entirely un-christian belief, as I see it.

Do atheists have a right to pronounce on what is and isn't "Christian"?

Do Christians have a right to pronounce on what is and isn't "atheist"?

How many straw men get built that way?

[Grimoire]

After reading (most) of the previous posts, I have a question for those who call themselves Christian skeptics: If science discovers something that is direct conflict with one of your religious beliefs, how do you reconcile the difference? What wins, skepticism or religion, or do you somehow believe both?

For the record, I was raised Christian (Roman Catholic, to be precise) and I am a skeptic and an atheist.

[valis]

However - when the believer starts to have quantifiable beliefs about their 'god', characteristics such as responsiveness to prayer, performing miracles, active involvement in creation etc... then the application of skepticism enters the question.

I agree totally, except perhaps for the active involvement in creation part. Unless you are talking about the denial of evolution etc.

[valis]

What Antiquehunter said, but I add:

That would be an entirely un-christian belief, as I see it.

Christians, by their very nature, must believe in a central tenet; Jesus is the son of god. If they don't believe that, they are not christians, despite whatever name they may choose to bestow on themselves.


I call myself a Christian but I readily admit I don't, and can't really "know". I don't feel that makes me not a Christian. Although I will admit that fundamental Christians would take exception to my way of thinking.

[valis]

Also, most every description of gods claim the gods interact with the Universe such as answering prayers. All tests to verify such claims have failed to detect any 'god effects'. Again, while absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, nonetheless, this absence does support the 'no god' hypothesis and at the very least refutes the particular claim being tested.

Except I know many people, including myself that feel God does not directly answer prayers.

[valis]

What a crock of BS. The "equality" you speak of is your own invention, just as your god is.

M.

Oh I'm sorry, I guess you told me. Crock of BS is certainly a compelling argument.

BTW: Since you look at the present universe and see no evidence of God and then reach the conclusion that there is none; could you please provide me with the source of your reference universes? You know the ones you used for comparison, so that you could tell what a universe with no God looked like.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sounds like being ‘Christian’ is a full time job just to define what you believe!

So according to Azure, now all you need to be classed as a Christian is to believe Jesus was the son of God. You are free to ignore all his moral (or immoral by today’s standards) teachings and not believe the miracles he performed. Well, I suppose if the membership is falling and you’re no longer allowed to torture people you have to lower the standards required for entry into your club.

As usual, when pressed to define themselves as a group, believers shatter into a million pieces.

As a group they are a joke. As individuals they are to be pitied.

[Darat]

Do atheists have a right to pronounce on what is and isn't "Christian"?


"They" can make an argument for their point.


Do Christians have a right to pronounce on what is and isn't "atheist"?

...snip...



"They" can make an argument for their point.

[The Atheist]

I call myself a Christian but I readily admit I don't, and can't really "know". I don't feel that makes me not a Christian. Although I will admit that fundamental Christians would take exception to my way of thinking.

That's the position posited by Bishop Richard Randerson (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=000CEE4E-336B-1405-A3CD83027AF10121). There's no problem with not "knowing", that's where the faith comes in.

[The Atheist]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or actually going "No True Scotsman"'ing

No, I'm actually being reasonably serious! I don't think it's a NTS deal at all. Ask any christian what the most important bit in the bible is and the standard answer is John 3:16.

Do atheists have a right to pronounce on what is and isn't "Christian"?

Do Christians have a right to pronounce on what is and isn't "atheist"?

How many straw men get built that way?

Well, since I'm basing my opinion of what christian means on what the enormous majority of christians agree on, I think anyone can make a case. Doesn't make it right, but unless you want to look at the strange sects mentioned earlier, I'm happy with taking the vast consensus.

[Moochie]

Oh I'm sorry, I guess you told me. Crock of BS is certainly a compelling argument.

BTW: Since you look at the present universe and see no evidence of God and then reach the conclusion that there is none; could you please provide me with the source of your reference universes? You know the ones you used for comparison, so that you could tell what a universe with no God looked like.

Up to you to prove your assertion, buddy. I never postulated a god, easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc., etc.

Cough up. Tell us what you know, and how you know it.

M.

[UnrepentantSinner]

When the hell did Skepticism come to equal atheism? I didn't get the memo and must be operating as some sort of Skeptical heretic who thinks religious people can be Skeptics.

It's very odd to me how the basic operational method of Skepticism is science, and yet science cannot address the supernartural per se. Obviously it can address specific claims of the supernatural (faith healing, Creationism) but cannot address the supernatural in the gesthalt.

[Moochie]

When the hell did Skepticism come to equal atheism? I didn't get the memo and must be operating as some sort of Skeptical heretic who thinks religious people can be Skeptics.

It's very odd to me how the basic operational method of Skepticism is science, and yet science cannot address the supernartural per se. Obviously it can address specific claims of the supernatural (faith healing, Creationism) but cannot address the supernatural in the gesthalt.

That's because there is no "gesthalt," :D

Seriously, though, science is just a way to remove the bullcrap.

You come up with something you'd like us all to believe in, you'd better come up with something we can all see. It's as simple as that.

Science can address anything that is real. The "supernatural" is bullcrap, hence science accepts it as only so much manure.

M.

[Azure]

Ummm, ethnic Jew here. Where are the Jews that believe this?

I went to school with many Jews that believed Jesus preformed those miracles. They also thought he was just a prophet, but not the Son of God.

[Brian Jackson]

This has been a very educational thread for me as a Christian. As a 3D modeler/engineer I keep seeing my skepticism vs. my faith as a Boolean model. For example, I was a Christian BEFORE I became a critical thinker. Therefor I see my skepticism as a subtractive function of my beliefs rather than an additive one. The more I come to understand certain fundamental biblical flaws, it knocks holes in my previous understanding of religious teachings. However, as pointed out in a post above, the fundamental belief that Jesus was/is the son of God remains. I do believe in God, and cannot fault him for sending a son to communicate with us. I may have done it differently myself, but then again, I'm no god.

[Azure]

Sounds like being ‘Christian’ is a full time job just to define what you believe!

So according to Azure, now all you need to be classed as a Christian is to believe Jesus was the son of God. You are free to ignore all his moral (or immoral by today’s standards) teachings and not believe the miracles he performed. Well, I suppose if the membership is falling and you’re no longer allowed to torture people you have to lower the standards required for entry into your club.

As usual, when pressed to define themselves as a group, believers shatter into a million pieces.

As a group they are a joke. As individuals they are to be pitied.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

I said the central aspect of the Christian belief is believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he died in order for Christians to obtain salvation, 'if' they believe what I just said.

Where did I say you could ignore the teachings and not believe the miracles?

Once again your ignorance on this subject is very clear Ivor.

[Azure]

No, that's not right at all.

As I said, people may call themselves christian, but they aren't. Pointing out a tiny sect which likes to use the term is a joke. Christ of god was prophesied before Jesus and his life was the proof of the prophesy. Christians may argue about whether the ressurrection was bodily or spiritual, or lots of other things, but the one trait all actual christians hold is that JC was god's son.

Says so in the bible, it must be true.

John 3:16

Thank you.

Well said.

[Azure]

Do atheists have a right to pronounce on what is and isn't "Christian"?

Do Christians have a right to pronounce on what is and isn't "atheist"?

How many straw men get built that way?

He is right though.

I don't see how it is possible to call yourself a Christian, and NOT believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

Everything about Christianity revolves around his life, his death, and his resurrection.

[Miss Anthrope]

I went to school with many Jews that believed Jesus preformed those miracles. They also thought he was just a prophet, but not the Son of God.

Ok, well, being an ethnic jew my entire life, and having a very large extended Jewish family through two marriages, attending temple as a child, I have not once met a single Jew who believed this. You said:

Even the Jews believe in the miracles that Jesus preformedNo, "The Jews" do not believe this. Apparently someone at your school did, but your statement implies that as a rule, the majority of Jews believe this. This is absolutely not true.

[The Atheist]

When the hell did Skepticism come to equal atheism? I didn't get the memo and must be operating as some sort of Skeptical heretic who thinks religious people can be Skeptics.

Scpeticism doesn't equal atheism, but must by its nature question religion, therefore agnosticism is a minimum requirement.

It's very odd to me how the basic operational method of Skepticism is science, and yet science cannot address the supernartural per se.

Bollocks!

So, we can't be sceptical of politics and politicians because we can't use science? The basic method of scepticism is scepticality.

Obviously it can address specific claims of the supernatural (faith healing, Creationism) but cannot address the supernatural in the gesthalt.

Correct, but so what? What is the supernatural without physical claims? A supernatural ability or entity which no effect on the physical world is irrelevant.

[cyborg]

However, as pointed out in a post above, the fundamental belief that Jesus was/is the son of God remains.

Why?

Essentially you are saying that you are believing just because you are believer. Maybe if you did not identify yourself as a Christian it would be easier to apply skepticism to the final beliefs you hold onto that really aren't any more worthy of being held onto than any of the other ones you apparently must have shed.

It is a recurrent theme - if you define yourself by what you believe then it is that much harder to scrutinise those beliefs because it become an attack on the self. That applies to religion, politics, sports - anything. People are fundamentally unwilling to be skeptical in this case even if they are the most skeptical person about everything else.

[CFLarsen]

Scpeticism doesn't equal atheism, but must by its nature question religion, therefore agnosticism is a minimum requirement.

Nonsense. You have seriously misunderstood what skepticism is.

Skepticism mustn't by its "nature" question religion. Skepticism isn't a position, it's a method. Skepticism deals with the testable: If what you believe isn't testable, then skepticism isn't concerned with it. If what you believe is, however, testable, then skepticism is concerned with the parts that are testable.

If you believe in a god that does miracles, it's a case for skeptics.

If you believe in a god that says "be good, don't kill, don't eat shellfish", it's not a case for skeptics.

We can discuss the good and bad of having the latter beliefs, but that's not skepticism per se. That's a moral issue.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>
Therefore, believing in the miracles and works of Jesus Christ is NOT the central aspect of the Christian faith.

<snip>
I said the central aspect of the Christian belief is believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he died in order for Christians to obtain salvation, 'if' they believe what I just said.

Where did I say you could ignore the teachings and not believe the miracles?
<snip>

So you now say that Christianity revolves around the belief that Jesus was the son of God and that a Christian has to follow and believe the moral teachings and miracles performed by him.

So if Christians have to believe and follow them then they are central to the belief. If you don’t then you can ignore them and they are not.

John 3:16

John 3:16 (chapter 3, verse 16 of the Gospel of John) is one of the most widely quoted verses from the Christian Bible. It has been called the "Bible in a nutshell" because it is considered a summary of some of the most central doctrines of traditional Christianity:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life

Taken from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_3:16

Take note of the fact it is a summary of some of the most central doctrines, which implies there are others to be believed and followed. So my post:

Christian: A believer in the teachings of and miracles performed by Jesus Christ. That's all of them, not just cherry picking the nice ones or taking them out of context to make them acceptable by today’s moral or scientific standards.

Is a correct statement, but omitted the required belief that Jesus was the son of God. I shall therefore amend it, just for you, Azure:)

Christian: Someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God and the teachings of and miracles performed by him are to be followed and taken as fact. That's all of them, not just cherry picking the nice ones or taking them out of context to make them acceptable by today’s moral or scientific standards.

As I said before, if someone would like to change my definition to one they think all Christians could agree with and would still be consistent with the Bible, then feel free.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Nonsense. You have seriously misunderstood what skepticism is.

Skepticism mustn't by its "nature" question religion. Skepticism isn't a position, it's a method. Skepticism deals with the testable: If what you believe isn't testable, then skepticism isn't concerned with it. If what you believe is, however, testable, then skepticism is concerned with the parts that are testable.

If you believe in a god that does miracles, it's a case for skeptics.

If you believe in a god that says "be good, don't kill, don't eat shellfish", it's not a case for skeptics.

We can discuss the good and bad of having the latter beliefs, but that's not skepticism per se. That's a moral issue.

Which is why I said a Deist could label themselves a Sceptic and still be consistent, but a Christian could not.

Christianity requires you to hold beliefs that can be tested that are unsupported by evidence.

[Jekyll]

BTW: Since you look at the present universe and see no evidence of God and then reach the conclusion that there is none; could you please provide me with the source of your reference universes? You know the ones you used for comparison, so that you could tell what a universe with no God looked like.

Why on earth would we have to do that?
If I say that an elephant is grey I don't need to go round painting it every other colour until you finally give in and admit I'm right.

There are no events in this universe which must (currently) be attributed to the existence of god. Therefore it is indistinguishable from a universe without god.

[The Atheist]

Nonsense. You have seriously misunderstood what skepticism is.

Skepticism mustn't by its "nature" question religion. Skepticism isn't a position, it's a method. Skepticism deals with the testable: If what you believe isn't testable, then skepticism isn't concerned with it. If what you believe is, however, testable, then skepticism is concerned with the parts that are testable.

If you believe in a god that does miracles, it's a case for skeptics.

If you believe in a god that says "be good, don't kill, don't eat shellfish", it's not a case for skeptics.

We can discuss the good and bad of having the latter beliefs, but that's not skepticism per se. That's a moral issue.

Unter, you just keep giving yourself away, don't you.

I see Ivan's put you right to some degree, but I'll add mine in. I specifically mentioned god/s who have physical effects.

Go drink some more water. Hopefully, the homeopathic effect of the stupid you've clearly consumed will be negated by ingesting larger amounts of it.

Oh, while you're at it - learn to read English.

[CFLarsen]

Christianity requires you to hold beliefs that can be tested that are unsupported by evidence.

It does?

I am not aware of any testable claims by Christians within the Protestant Danish Church.

[sphenisc]

It does?

I am not aware of any testable claims by Christians within the Protestant Danish Church.

They seem quite broad-minded, in some ways...

http://www.saintnobodyjournal.com/world_news/danish_pastor_disbelieves.html





:D

[The Atheist]

It does?

I am not aware of any testable claims by Christians within the Protestant Danish Church.


I see you indicate that protestant Danish church is a proper noun, yet it appears to be incorrect - there doesn't seem to be such an organisation.

Which church are you talking about, Unter? It appears there are several churches which are both Danish and Protestant.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Except I know many people, including myself that feel God does not directly answer prayers.So what does the god you believe in do?

[Skeptic Ginger]

When the hell did Skepticism come to equal atheism? I didn't get the memo and must be operating as some sort of Skeptical heretic who thinks religious people can be Skeptics.

It's very odd to me how the basic operational method of Skepticism is science, and yet science cannot address the supernartural per se. Obviously it can address specific claims of the supernatural (faith healing, Creationism) but cannot address the supernatural in the gesthalt.You may have a misconstrued understanding here.

Science can address any phenomenon people claim is supernatural and probably find a better explanation for it than "supernatural". But if the claim is something that defies the laws of physics, we have no evidence that actually occurs but for science to address it, there has to be a testable hypothesis.

The image on the photo, science can address. The EMF readings, the temperature changes claimed to be evidence of ghosts, science can address. Ghosts that supposedly have some physical presence but supposedly don't have a physical presence at the same time, what are you supposed to test for?

A god you can pray to and something happens whether it is direct or indirect, science can test. A god that has no presence to detect, what are you going to test?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
If you believe in a god that says "be good, don't kill, don't eat shellfish", it's not a case for skeptics.

We can discuss the good and bad of having the latter beliefs, but that's not skepticism per se. That's a moral issue.Morality is as testable as anything else. People confuse the fact when they judge something moral or immoral, they are using unspoken criteria to make that judgement.

Reveal the criteria and you can measure something via the scientific process to meet it or not.

That doesn't mean science is the best tool to investigate morality, but on the occasions it is, such as public health decisions, then there is no reason not to apply it.

I don't agree with the skeptics must be agnostics though. I maintain a more practical position. If more evidence is discovered, every conclusion is open to revision, but in the meantime, I see no reason not to accept certain things for which there is overwhelming evidence.

[HarryKeogh]

I'm not aware of any virgins giving birth or anyone physically rising from death so I would say Christianity certainly falls under the skeptic's microscope.

[Azure]

So you now say that Christianity revolves around the belief that Jesus was the son of God and that a Christian has to follow and believe the moral teachings and miracles performed by him.


No I did not say that.

Perhaps you should take reading comprehension courses, or maybe this is over your head.


So if Christians have to believe and follow them then they are central to the belief. If you don’t then you can ignore them and they are not.


I said you should not ignore them, but I never said they are central to the Christian belief. Since we all like Wikipedia....*they are amazingly accurate with this..*


Foundations of Christianity:
Jesus Christ
Church · Christian Theology
New Covenant · Supersessionism
Apostles · Kingdom · Gospel


Notice that Jesus Christ is obviously the most important part here.

Next, the beliefs, or the theology behind Christianity, and more specifically behind Jesus Christ, since he is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.


Christian Theology
Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
Creation · Fall of Man · Covenant[new covenant] · Law
Grace · Faith · Justification · Salvation
Sanctification · Theosis · Worship
Church · Sacraments · Eschatology


Miracles?


Take note of the fact it is a summary of some of the most central doctrines, which implies there are others to be believed and followed. So my post:


One can believe the teachings of Jesus Christ, and still not be a Christian.

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, and that if you believe in him, you will inherit eternal life.

Sounds pretty much like John 3:16 eh?


Is a correct statement, but omitted the required belief that Jesus was the son of God. I shall therefore amend it, just for you, Azure:)


A good start.

[Azure]

You may have a misconstrued understanding here.

Science can address any phenomenon people claim is supernatural and probably find a better explanation for it than "supernatural".

I was unaware the science could address whether or not the afterlife actually exists.

And the afterlife is very much supernatural.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm one of those who actually believe it is possible to be a skeptic and a Christian.

I think a person can be skeptical in many things but their own religion. So, I guess I agree. However, a christian is obviously not applying critical thought to his own beliefs, he can't. There is absolutely no valid evidence to support christian beliefs in god and jesus.

[Slimething]

Science can address any phenomenon people claim is supernatural and probably find a better explanation for it than "supernatural". But if the claim is something that defies the laws of physics, we have no evidence that actually occurs but for science to address it, there has to be a testable hypothesis.

The claim must be falsifiable. Don't put science on the spot, though. There are many claimed supernatural phenomena that cannot be tested or measured by science such as a soul, states of grace/sin, recycling (reincarnation), etc. We have no theories or instruments for these phenomena, imaginary or not.

A god you can pray to and something happens whether it is direct or indirect, science can test. A god that has no presence to detect, what are you going to test?

..or a god who's lost interest and does not respond?

[Azure]

I think a person can be skeptical in many things but their own religion. So, I guess I agree. However, a christian is obviously not applying critical thought to his own beliefs, he can't. There is absolutely no valid evidence to support christian beliefs in god and jesus.

Pretty much.

That is why the belief depends on faith.

[The Atheist]

The claim must be falsifiable. Don't put science on the spot, though. There are many claimed supernatural phenomena that cannot be tested or measured by science such as a soul, states of grace/sin, recycling (reincarnation), etc. We have no theories or instruments for these phenomena, imaginary or not.

I think it's incorrect to say that we have no theories about those matters - there's a widespread theory, which I subscribe to, which suggests that all of those are merely the result of activity within one's own brain.

"God" may not be testable, but I'm sure that in the [very near?] future, we'll be able to test what brain pattern is evident when one is "in a state of grace". to borrow your phrase.

It certainly won't disprove any gods, but it will certainly satisy me.

..or a god who's lost interest and does not respond?

...or even a god who's too busy picking winners for Darren Beadman and helping his favourite sports stars win their games.

[quixotecoyote]

No, I'm actually being reasonably serious! I don't think it's a NTS deal at all. Ask any christian what the most important bit in the bible is and the standard answer is John 3:16.



Well, since I'm basing my opinion of what christian means on what the enormous majority of christians agree on, I think anyone can make a case. Doesn't make it right, but unless you want to look at the strange sects mentioned earlier, I'm happy with taking the vast consensus.

Conisder Coptic Christianity, it has about the same to 6 times as many followers as Judaism (depending on which sources you use and which Jews you count).

The Byzantine church split at the Council of Chalcedon over what that phrase meant, and the Oriental Orthodox Chruches mean somthing different when they use the phrase than then the other three branches of Christianity. Granted it's a rather obsure theological point, but if large numbers of Christians cannot agree on what "Jesus is the Son of God" means, then it can hardly be held as a litmus test.

This is especially true if you try to label historical Christians, prior to the Council of Nicea there were a good half dozen interpretations running around that said Jesus was God without being human, Jesus was human without being god, and so forth that were all held by early Christians.

[The Atheist]

Conisder Coptic Christianity, it has about the same to 6 times as many followers as Judaism (depending on which sources you use and which Jews you count).

Well, Pope Shenouda III seems to think that Jesus was the son of god (http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/divinity_of_christ_pope_shenouda.pdf), so I'm not sure what your point is.

Shenouda also notes that the divinity of Jesus is central to christianity.

[thaiboxerken]

There's no problem with not "knowing", that's where the faith comes in.

Isn't faith claiming to know that which you don't know?

If I don't know something, I simply admit that I don't know.

[quixotecoyote]

Well, Pope Shenouda III seems to think that Jesus was the son of god (http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/divinity_of_christ_pope_shenouda.pdf), so I'm not sure what your point is.

Shenouda also notes that the divinity of Jesus is central to christianity.

Yes but when he said it meant something different then when the Roman Catholic Pope says it. Miaphysitism instead of Dyophysitism. It's a fundamentally different meaning to the Son of God.

Still, my stronger argument on this point comes from the historical Monarchianists and/or Adoptionists, which respectively do not grant a distinction between God and Jesus or deny an familial connection. This tradition is carried on in The New Church (http://www.newchurch.org/). It is admittedly small, but as they self-label as Christian and do follow Christ's teachings as they interpret them they seem to earn the label.

Come to think of it, that's a better defintion. Christians=Followers of the Christ. Of course it's still meaningless as a descriptor because it doesn't say which verision they follow or where they think the Christ is leading them, but it's a much more defensible definition.

How

[Azure]

Isn't faith claiming to know that which you don't know?

If I don't know something, I simply admit that I don't know.

I would call faith having a belief in something you don't actually know.

[Apathia]

The net is getting wider!
St. Paul said, "they who follow the Spirit of God, are the sons of God."
Some of the church fathers were so impressed by the ethical statements of the Stoics that they regarded them in the Christian family.
I follow the Christ Nature, AKA, Buddha Nature, AKA Tao, AKA Dharma.
With a little bit of luck, I could still be a Christian! (It wouldn't take much luck to be an Episcopalian again.)

Ah, time to see this wonderful film again!
http://imdb.com/title/tt0064622/

[The Atheist]

Isn't faith claiming to know that which you don't know as factual something so feeble a four year-old can see through it?

Yes.














(Changes mine)

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was unaware the science could address whether or not the afterlife actually exists.

And the afterlife is very much supernatural.Using the scientific process we could study why your brain fantasizes an afterlife and believes it to be real and mine fantasizes one but recognizes there is no evidence or reason to suspect one exists.

Using the scientific process we could study any phenomena that people claim is evidence of an afterlife. We could determine the most likely explanation and test that finding to confirm it or look for another explanation.

Using the scientific process we could study the recurring theme in various religions that include an afterlife. That's already been done. The themes suggest man made constructs.

Got any phenomena suggesting the existence of an afterlife besides your intrinsic brain mechanism? Could be a cool million in it if you had real evidence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The claim must be falsifiable. Don't put science on the spot, though. There are many claimed supernatural phenomena that cannot be tested or measured by science such as a soul, states of grace/sin, recycling (reincarnation), etc. We have no theories or instruments for these phenomena, imaginary or not.See above post. I've gotten into this discussion with science purists before. If you propose nothing but a soul, then there is no test. But then if there is no evidence of a soul, why bother entertaining the idea? And if there is evidence, then it's testable.

And even when there is no evidence other than some "inner feeling" that brain function is most certainly testable. And what most people leave out when excusing science from having to confront religious beliefs besides the things that are supposed to happen which don't, is the fact science can look at beliefs and religions and come up with evidence supporting alternative explanations for those while there is no evidence actual gods are the source of the beliefs and religions.

..or a god who's lost interest and does not respond?It doesn't matter what excuse you want to come up with about why studies fail to find any real effect of prayer, what matters is what is believed about prayer fails the test of real effect.

If you want to propose a god that doesn't interact with the Universe or a god that covers its tracks so as to not be detectable, then science has nothing to test. No religion I'm aware of describes such a god or gods.

Some people like to stretch the faith angle and even go so far as to claim dinosaur fossils are there to test one's faith. In that scenario, you have a god that wishes you to believe in him while actually trying to convince you he doesn't exist. Nothing in the Bible I'm aware of supports this view.

Tests of faith are part of the Biblical religion, but that doesn't equal the requirement one believe in something that is being actively hidden. Testing one's faith is not presented in the Bible as a requirement you believe in a god that is never detectable. God in the Bible is supposed to do all sorts of things. But when you actually look to see if there is any evidence of such "works of God", you find none.

If you have some actual evidence that proves me wrong, that might also qualify for that million, though I'm not sure.

[Ivor the Engineer]

No I did not say that.

Perhaps you should take reading comprehension courses, or maybe this is over your head.

Oh Azure, I beg of you, please explain in language simple enough that even I may understand, the coherent statements you claim you made in a single paragraph.

Oh and while you’re at it, could you explain that Holy Trinity thing? I’ve always had trouble with that.

I said you should not ignore them, but I never said they are central to the Christian belief. Since we all like Wikipedia....*they are amazingly accurate with this..*

Notice that Jesus Christ is obviously the most important part here.

Yes, but there’s a whole load of other stuff tacked on that list. Presumably it’s not optional.

Next, the beliefs, or the theology behind Christianity, and more specifically behind Jesus Christ, since he is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.

Miracles?

Given that descriptions of miracles are described in the Gospels and to be a Christian you have to believe what is written in them then I’d say there are plenty of them to choose from. E.g., the feeding of the five-thousand, walking on water?

The Creation story is rammed full with testable claims. According to the list you presented, belief of the Creation is a required to be Christian. Does God not mind when his Children think he’s a liar?

One can believe the teachings of Jesus Christ, and still not be a Christian.

But the reverse does not hold i.e. you cannot be a Christian without believing the teachings of Jesus.

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, and that if you believe in him, you will inherit eternal life.

Sounds pretty much like John 3:16 eh?

That is one of the requirements to be a Christian. You already listed the others.

[valis]

As usual, when pressed to define themselves as a group, believers shatter into a million pieces.

I have never been much of one for defining myself as a part of any group. I prefer to think for myself.

As a group they are a joke. As individuals they are to be pitied.
[/QUOTE]

In my experience when people curse at, get angry and yell at, or say they feel sorry for, someone they disagree with, it is because they are frustrated that they cannot come up with a better argument.

[valis]

Up to you to prove your assertion, buddy. I never postulated a god, easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc., etc.

Cough up. Tell us what you know, and how you know it.

M.

I don't know, I never said I did know. I said the question is un-answerable so any assumption that you prefer to work from is equal ( with the caveat that it not interfere with your functioning.)

I said the only truly "correct" assumption is to say "I absolutely don't know and I have no information on which to make an educated guess". I recognize that but I choose to work from the assumption that there is a God; if you prefer to think there is not that is fine, we are both thinking in the same way. You are just more comfortable with one conclusion than another.

If are claiming that concluding there is no God is somehow more logical than supposing there is I would merely like to know how you decided what a godless universe looks like as compared to a universe that was created by divine intervention.

[valis]

So what does the god you believe in do?

Beats me. I think about the concept a lot, I could certainly type a few dozen or maybe hundreds of pages outlining different possibilities I have thought of. But if your looking for some testable concrete answer I am sorry there isn't one and if I proposed one you could not possibly find a definitive way to test it.

There are some things that are beyond knowing.

[cyborg]

I recognize that but I choose to work from the assumption that there is a God;

To what end?

If are claiming that concluding there is no God is somehow more logical than supposing there is I would merely like to know how you decided what a godless universe looks like as compared to a universe that was created by divine intervention.

Apparently they look identical.

Hence no need to assume there's a god.

Tradition is not a good reason to believe something.

[cyborg]

There are some things that are beyond knowing.

You cannot possibly say a 'god' exists if you cannot even begin to know what shape the thing takes. The statement becomes totally bereft of information - one might as well go around saying:

"I believe in X!"

"What is X?"

"X is that which I cannot know!"

For all X it is just as vacuous.

[TheBoyPaj]

As other have pointed out, subscribing to the Christian, or any other, belief system demands that you do not think critically about the scriptures with which you are presented. You can't be a Christian Skeptic, no matter how much you compartmentalise.

If you're going to believe that the Universe worked a different way when Christ was around, you might as believe that homeopathy works, except when tested.

Regarding the view that, since one cannot disprove God, the matter of its existence is not in the realm of science, the correct response should be "we do not know", not "I choose to believe."

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have never been much of one for defining myself as a part of any group. I prefer to think for myself.

Apart from your choice of God, which last time I read was the Christian one. That must of taken a huge amount of thought.

In my experience when people curse at, get angry and yell at, or say they feel sorry for, someone they disagree with, it is because they are frustrated that they cannot come up with a better argument.

You're almost right. I was frustrated. Now I'm mostly apathetic unless I see or hear of young people being indoctrinated. They are the ones I feel the most pity for.

[CFLarsen]

They seem quite broad-minded, in some ways...

http://www.saintnobodyjournal.com/world_news/danish_pastor_disbelieves.html

:D

That was silly. Why does he want to be a priest, if he doesn't believe in God?

[CFLarsen]

I'm not aware of any virgins giving birth or anyone physically rising from death so I would say Christianity certainly falls under the skeptic's microscope.

How are you going to test those claims?

[Ian Osborne]

How are you going to test those claims?

All tests start with an observable phenomenon, so to start, we must find examples of it apparently happening.

[CFLarsen]

All tests start with an observable phenomenon, so to start, we must find examples of it apparently happening.

Yeah, but what about the actual events: They happened 2000 years ago, how will we test those?

[Moochie]

<snip>

I do believe in God, and cannot fault him for sending a son to communicate with us.

Yep, no cell-phones and SMSs in hebben...

M.

[Moochie]

If you believe in a god that does miracles, it's a case for skeptics.

If you believe in a god that says "be good, don't kill, don't eat shellfish", it's not a case for skeptics.

But Claus, what is the basis of belief in a god? Isn't that testable also?

M.

[Moochie]

I said the only truly "correct" assumption is to say "I absolutely don't know and I have no information on which to make an educated guess". I recognize that but I choose to work from the assumption that there is a God; if you prefer to think there is not that is fine, we are both thinking in the same way. You are just more comfortable with one conclusion than another.

That's deeply offensive, valis. In no way whatever are we "thinking in the same way."

I think from evidence. You appear to think from fantasy. There is an order of magnitude of difference.

If you cannot see that, you're more moronic than I thought.

M.

[CFLarsen]

But Claus, what is the basis of belief in a god? Isn't that testable also?

M.

Depends on what people say their god can do. If it is a sort of "He watches over me" type of god, then there's nothing to test. If it is a sort of "He made me walk on water", there is.

[Soapy Sam]

Walking on water is merely a matter of temperature.

[Azure]

Using the scientific process we could study why your brain fantasizes an afterlife and believes it to be real and mine fantasizes one but recognizes there is no evidence or reason to suspect one exists.

Using the scientific process we could study any phenomena that people claim is evidence of an afterlife. We could determine the most likely explanation and test that finding to confirm it or look for another explanation.

Using the scientific process we could study the recurring theme in various religions that include an afterlife. That's already been done. The themes suggest man made constructs.

Got any phenomena suggesting the existence of an afterlife besides your intrinsic brain mechanism? Could be a cool million in it if you had real evidence.

Got any scientific evidence that proves the afterlife does or does not exist?

Didn't think so.

You can't, because science can't properly explain the supernatural. If it could, it wouldn't be called supernatural.

Next.

[cyborg]

You can't, because science can't properly explain the supernatural. If it could, it wouldn't be called supernatural.

The concept of the supernatural is incoherent - as such nothing can explain it.

Next.

Next? This is the very crux of magical thinking - the insistance that there are special rules that we just can't know about that allow something to be true when there is no other reason to think so.

Science != skepticism.

[Jekyll]

Got any scientific evidence that proves the afterlife does or does not exist?

Didn't think so.

You can't, because science can't properly explain the supernatural. If it could, it wouldn't be called supernatural.

Next.

Umm, no. It's that science can't find the supernatural, not that it can't explain it.

The contradictions between quantum physics and general relativity haven't been resolved yet. It doesn't matter, it's still all natural.

The reason that the afterlife is consider 'supernatural' is because no one has been able to show it exists.

Next.

[Wowbagger]

For what it's worth:
I agree that beliefs, without evidence to back them up, are vacuous.
But, some people simply need that "vacuum" in their lives.

You may wish everyone was strong enough not to need such things, but that would be an unrealistic expectation, today.

Anyway, it ought to be JREF's position not to judge people, and only concern itself with what can be tested. That means folks with any semblence of belief in God should feel welcomed, (as long as they don't claim to have evidence of God, and then not actually have any when asked to present it).

If you want to start an athiests-only organization, go right ahead.

[chocolatepossum]

I don't think believing something without evidence is very sceptical, even if you admit you have no evidence.I think most religious sceptics have something of a blindspot in this regard. However, I also think it is pointless to quibble over the definition of a "Skeptic"; we obviously all use the word to mean subtly different things. We can attempt to reach a consensus on a definition we like, argue incessantly over what the correct usage of the term is, or agree to disagree and move on.

I welcome any Christians who want to join us in combatting and debunkng homeopathy, for example. I still think they're wrong and unsceptical about religion. However, none of this means they can't be sceptical about other things, or that I can't get along with them or agree with them on many, many issues.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Beats me. I think about the concept a lot, I could certainly type a few dozen or maybe hundreds of pages outlining different possibilities I have thought of. But if your looking for some testable concrete answer I am sorry there isn't one and if I proposed one you could not possibly find a definitive way to test it.

There are some things that are beyond knowing.Translation, you believe in a god that might or might not do anything.

Sounds to me like you find yourself unable to let go of the god concept despite the fact it's so meaningless of a concept to you that you cannot describe one thing that god actually does.

[The Atheist]

Anyway, it ought to be JREF's position not to judge people, and only concern itself with what can be tested. That means folks with any semblence of belief in God should feel welcomed, (as long as they don't claim to have evidence of God, and then not actually have any when asked to present it).

If you want to start an athiests-only organization, go right ahead.

I think you've missed the point a little - nobody is denying any religious types any rights and the number of christians, deists and others on the forum give the lie to any different position. Christians have always been welcomed here and several christian posters on the forum are undoubtedly among the most astute posters.

The only issue is whether they are entitled to claim the term "sceptic" for themselves.

The answer's no.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I would not of bothered posting in the first place if the thread had been called "Skeptical (but still a Christian) fan."

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, but what about the actual events: They happened 2000 years ago, how will we test those?Science cannot test things before the Big bang or outside of the Universe. Those things are not accessible. I'm not sure what category to put things that would have been testable in the past but the opportunity is no longer available. Because while we don't have a means of testing this at the moment, technology does allow us to test some things from the past by evidence left from that time.

This event supposedly occurred. We have no evidence left behind at the moment to test. But there is the possibility some evidence will be found in the future which does allow us to test that specific event.

Short of definitive evidence, (which applies to an awful lot of things in the realm of science), I can still take the evidence I do have and draw a conclusion based on the best evidence available. The scientific process does not exclude such things from its realm merely because there is insufficient evidence currently available.

Such evidence which I currently have is the story of Jesus is totally illogical. [God sends his "only begotten son" to Earth to be tortured and killed by other of God's children so God can forgive a single act of disobedience (from a story that is clearly mythological) that the ancestors of the other of God's children supposedly committed (in a myth). Since it was up to God to forgive the 'original' sin, the whole Jesus thing was absolutely unnecessary.] There are many stories in many religions and nothing about the story of Jesus suggests it is unique.The evidence strongly suggests stories of such events in various religions are mythical stories (see anthropological sciences for an entire body of evidence regarding religious beliefs).There is no corroborating evidence.The evidence is overwhelming that other stories in the Bible are myths.The evidence is overwhelming events associated with the Jesus story are inaccurate. (For example Eve's daughters according to the myth were to be punished by suffering the pain of childbirth. Childbirth pain is not absent in daughters who accept Jesus and have supposedly been forgiven; and, anesthesia was not used until ~2,000 years after the Jesus event which was supposed to be the event which certain women could be forgiven; and, the use of anesthesia does not correlate in any way, nor does pain in childbirth correlate in any way with the belief in Jesus or the Christian religion or the Bible or having taken part in any of the rituals of those beliefs such as "being born again". If you are forgiven, why would God still be punishing you?)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Depends on what people say their god can do. If it is a sort of "He watches over me" type of god, then there's nothing to test. If it is a sort of "He made me walk on water", there is.Comparing those "watched over" with those not "watched over" should detect some differences that are not explicable by other variables.

And if God "watches over" everyone, then you are back to a God that doesn't interact with the Universe since no action is taken by this watching over that doesn't follow known laws of physics.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Walking on water is merely a matter of temperature.
And depth. ;)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Got any scientific evidence that proves the afterlife does or does not exist?

Didn't think so.

You can't, because science can't properly explain the supernatural. If it could, it wouldn't be called supernatural.

Next.Next? As in you don't have a clue what I said therefore you've dismissed it. Try a little comprehension of what I already posted before requesting I post more.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Umm, no. It's that science can't find the supernatural, not that it can't explain it.

The contradictions between quantum physics and general relativity haven't been resolved yet. It doesn't matter, it's still all natural.

The reason that the afterlife is consider 'supernatural' is because no one has been able to show it exists.

Next.And, there is no reason to think it exists in the first place. Bring on the invisible pink unicorns, we should all seriously consider their existence since we cannot prove they don't.

[Wowbagger]

I think you've missed the point a little - nobody is denying any religious types any rights and the number of christians, deists and others on the forum give the lie to any different position. Christians have always been welcomed here and several christian posters on the forum are undoubtedly among the most astute posters.

The only issue is whether they are entitled to claim the term "sceptic" for themselves.

The answer's no.You may be right in that I swerved from the main point, a bit.

But, I don't see any reason why someone with a vague, admittedly unproven, belief in God can't call themselves a Skeptic, if they are, indeed skeptical about everything else, and don't use their belief to cloud their judgement.

Although most believers are clouded to the point they can't be a "skeptic", I don't think it is impossible for a "believer Skepric" to be capable of unclouded inquiry.

So, I say "yes", they could be entitled to claim the term "sceptic" for themselves.

If you are looking for such a word that only includes athiests, I think the word "athiest" is perfectly suitable.

[Beth]

And, there is no reason to think it exists in the first place. Bring on the invisible pink unicorns, we should all seriously consider their existence since we cannot prove they don't.


Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence regarding an afterlife that IPU's don't have. Now, it's not particularly good evidence because it is exclusively of the personal testimonial type - i.e. I had a dream that my grandmother came and said good-bye to me. Then, the next day I found out she had passed away the previous night.

I'm not aware of any sane person who claims to have personal experience with an IPU. I know several who are willing to give testimony similar to the above. The evidence is certainly insufficient to claim proof of an afterlife, so if you don't want to accept that as sufficient evidence to believe in an afterlife, that's quite understandable. However, it is considerably more evidence than is available for the IPU and it is quite reasonable for someone to seriously consider the existance of an afterlife but not an IPU based on the available evidence.

[Beth]

If you are looking for such a word that only includes athiests, I think the word "athiest" is perfectly suitable.

The problem with this is that being atheist does not imply that one is also skeptical.

[cyborg]

I'm not aware of any sane person who claims to have personal experience with an IPU.

This is irrelevant to the analogy and you know it.

You can replace it with any number of concepts people HAVE claimed to have personal experiences with and we get bigfoot, UFOs, etc...

However, it is considerably more evidence than is available for the IPU

No, it's not. That's the point.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...it ought to be JREF's position not to judge people, and only concern itself with what can be tested. That means folks with any semblence of belief in God should feel welcomed, (as long as they don't claim to have evidence of God, and then not actually have any when asked to present it).

If you want to start an athiests-only organization, go right ahead.I try to confine my comments to the evidence and not the believer. We all need reminders of this from time to time. But why single out religious beliefs here over other woo beliefs?

Go ahead and believe in your [homeopathy, conspiracy theories, etc] just don't claim you have evidence for those?

I realize discussion religion with a skeptical view creates quite the dilemma, both because many skeptics exclude that one section of their world when it comes to skepticism, and two because people are more emotionally tied to their religious beliefs than one expects a person to be tied to astrology or homeopathy.

Politics such as with some conspiracy beliefs and skepticism about political spin against contrary evidence might be judged to fall in the middle. We have a very hard time with selective attention to the evidence in the political threads.

The initial skeptical response to religious beliefs has typically been to exclude them with generalizations such as the scientific process doesn't test for the supernatural or for gods. Don't offend a person's religious beliefs. You can be a scientist and a believer, yadda yadda yadda.

But, just because people don't like having their religious beliefs challenged is no reason to write the whole area out of the skeptics' realm of discussion. I have presented the areas of religious beliefs I can defend that the scientific process does indeed address. I have described the specific things that are within the realm of science in this thread. If you find me saying everyone who believes in deities is an idiot, you can criticize my post, as you should.

But I don't agree you should try to exclude the discussion of what science can address in the realm of the supernatural and religious beliefs unless you can show that the logic in the discussion is fallible. Where I have responded to a couple of the generic answers in this thread, that you can't address religious beliefs with the scientific process, I think it is important to show that generalized concept is faulty.

In other words skeptics need to reconsider just what one is excluding when we excuse ourselves from having to face the fact that there are many places science and religion are coming into conflict with each other. Ignoring the elephant in the room lest we offend 'believers' is not only putting off the inevitable, it is also a skeptic cop out. I'll definitely be sticking to the evidence when it comes to belief in gods and the limits of the scientific process, but the boundary of what is and isn't testable is not that of religious beliefs, it is at the edge of the Universe. That means whatever you want to put outside of the real world, fine, but anything you claim is in the real world should have some existence that is testable.

[Beth]

This is irrelevant to the analogy and you know it.

You can replace it with any number of concepts people HAVE claimed to have personal experiences with and we get bigfoot, UFOs, etc...
Yes.



No, it's not. That's the point.

We'll have to disagree there. It's certainly not sufficient evidence to constitute proof in any of those cases, but it is evidence and it is far more than the IPU has (zero) which is why that particular argument isn't convincing to many people.

[cyborg]

We'll have to disagree there. It's certainly not sufficient evidence to constitute proof in any of those cases, but it is evidence and it is far more than the IPU has (zero) which is why that particular argument isn't convincing to many people.

Beth, if a claim is evidence then all I need to do is claim.

If lots of claims are evidence all I need to do is get a lot of people to claim.

As such we go from zero to whatever in short time.

I hereby claim.

The IPU has one.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You may be right in that I swerved from the main point, a bit.

But, I don't see any reason why someone with a vague, admittedly unproven, belief in God can't call themselves a Skeptic, if they are, indeed skeptical about everything else, and don't use their belief to cloud their judgement.

Although most believers are clouded to the point they can't be a "skeptic", I don't think it is impossible for a "believer Skepric" to be capable of unclouded inquiry.

So, I say "yes", they could be entitled to claim the term "sceptic" for themselves.

If you are looking for such a word that only includes athiests, I think the word "athiest" is perfectly suitable.Now this I agree with. If we expect perfection in using the term skeptic, then all of you would agree with all of my political conclusions. ;)

Obviously skeptics allow some imperfections within the group. If people want to exclude looking at their religious beliefs with skepticism, so be it. I only ask a skeptic to admit they are, for no measurable reason, ignoring the principles of an evidence based world when it comes to their religious beliefs. It is a little disingenuous to claim the scientific process can't address those beliefs (for the reasons I described in my posts in this thread) thereby denying they are less than skeptical about their religious beliefs.

[The Atheist]

But, I don't see any reason why someone with a vague, admittedly unproven, belief in God can't call themselves a Skeptic, if they are, indeed skeptical about everything else, and don't use their belief to cloud their judgement.

Two things about that. Firstly, I don't recall ever having met a christian who had a "vague belief in god" and we're talking about christians.

Secondly, being sceptical about everything but religion, then claiming to be a sceptic makes about as much sense as me claiming to be non-racist, then excusing my behaviour of abusing blacks on the grounds of, "its not racism, blacks commit all the crime". It's exactly the same as the term "christian". Anyone can claim to be that which they are not - it's their actions which give them away.

Although most believers are clouded to the point they can't be a "skeptic", I don't think it is impossible for a "believer Skepric" to be capable of unclouded inquiry.

Quite right, just like my non-racist hatred of darkies. (n.b. I don't, but am trying to make a point)

So, I say "yes", they could be entitled to claim the term "sceptic" for themselves.

Good on you, it's a free world. That's the beauty of discussing stuff like this - nobody makes any rules and say "THIS is what a Skeptic" must be. We all toss around opinions, it just happens that mine's right!

If you are looking for such a word that only includes athiests, I think the word "athiest" is perfectly suitable.

Glad you raised that point as I have belaboured it myself in this thread!

Cheers

Scpeticism doesn't equal atheism, but must by its nature question religion, therefore agnosticism is a minimum requirement.


"Leaning towards belief" sits fine with being a sceptic; saying, "I love Jesus" does not.

I actually doubt that many atheists or sceptics demand that god does not exist. Those who do, as you suggest, are probably being as un-sceptical as christians.

[cyborg]

But why single out religious beliefs here over other woo beliefs?

Like I said earlier - tradition.

The only difference between a cult and a religion is how many people are members. I for one am not going to be blamed if people make the mistake of defining themselves by what they believe if what they believe happens to be wrong.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence regarding an afterlife that IPU's don't have. Now, it's not particularly good evidence because it is exclusively of the personal testimonial type - i.e. I had a dream that my grandmother came and said good-bye to me. Then, the next day I found out she had passed away the previous night.

I'm not aware of any sane person who claims to have personal experience with an IPU. I know several who are willing to give testimony similar to the above. The evidence is certainly insufficient to claim proof of an afterlife, so if you don't want to accept that as sufficient evidence to believe in an afterlife, that's quite understandable. However, it is considerably more evidence than is available for the IPU and it is quite reasonable for someone to seriously consider the existance of an afterlife but not an IPU based on the available evidence.IPU?

You are not describing evidence of an afterlife. You are describing events people have concluded are evidence. There is a difference.

You have to show that your evidence supports your conclusion. For example, those supposed ghost hunters that run around measuring EMF and temperature variance have all failed to do the most basic science, that is show you are getting readings that one doesn't get in locations where there supposedly are no ghosts, IE control for other variables.

Dreams are in no way going to be acceptable evidence for obvious reasons.

There are a few TV stories of the dead revealing their locations to psychics, there is all the John Edwards stuff, and there are a few TV versions of someone revealing something highly unusual such as the number to an unknown safe deposit box that is then found. The problem with these TV stories is they are highly distorted. We don't know what the real evidence actually was. But when you do try to verify the validity, you get nothing of substance.

Then there are the NDEs (near death experiences). There are none of those that can't be explained by the person hearing the real world and dreaming the rest. And draining blood from one's brain in a G-force simulator has produced the tunnel and light experience. Currently there are a few experiments ongoing with a reader-board type message above eye level in EDs and ORs waiting for that one person who has an out of body experience to read the message. It hasn't happened yet. Call me when it does.

Also in the same vein, your brain activity doesn't flatline the second your heart does. It is arbitrary to define death as when the heart stops. We know that isn't the moment of death even though it is often claimed to be. You don't die and come back when your heart stops, your heart stops and re-starts.

The premonitions or knowing a person died are not evidence they contacted you after death. With 6 billion people on the planet, such coincidences are expected to occur at least sometimes.

So again, just because one interprets meaning, doesn't equate to that meaning having validity.

[The Atheist]

The IPU has one.

Ok, that's your

1
_____________________

2,100,000,000 christians


Jesus being god is 2.1bn times more likely to be true than IPU.

The third of St Thomas Aquinas' Quinquae viae posits a measure of probability of the IPU existing in the Universe. Thanks to science advancing a little in the intervening 800 years, we can now use a finite probability producer to give a probability of the IPU's existence of 0.000000000476190476.

Multiplied by the number of christians, that gives christianity a probability level of 99.99999996%.

You've almost proved god, sign some more people up to IPU, fast.

[Skeptic Ginger]

IPU?

[Beth]

Beth, if a claim is evidence then all I need to do is claim.

If lots of claims are evidence all I need to do is get a lot of people to claim.


I didn't say a claim was evidence. I said personal testimonial was evidence. Further, though I didn't state it, I should have included the criteria of 'credible' along with that. Credible personal testimony is evidence. It is not proof. People can be mistaken.

As such we go from zero to whatever in short time.

I hereby claim.

The IPU has one.

Sorry, but I don't find that a credible claim. I don't know you personally and, given the context of our conversation, I suspect you are being facetious rather than sincere in making your claim. Hence, I don't believe you.

Different witnesses have different levels of credibility. Further, the crebility of a witness can vary tremendously depending on the circumstances. There are some very credible eye-witness accounts of everything from ghosts to UFO's to bigfeet. That doesn't make such claims true; as I said above, they could be (and probably are) mistaken. But it does mean that those claims have some evidence. I have yet to hear a credible witness sincerely claim to have personal experience with the IPU. That means that it has less evidence than do any of the other claims and it is not reasonable to equate the two as being equally likely.

You may, and may people do, consider the evidence for both the IPU and the afterlife as being close enough to zero as not worth distinguishing between. However, that doesn't mean they have equal amounts of evidence supporting them and it's incorrect to claim that they do.

[Skeptic Guy]

IPU?

"Invisible Pink Unicorns"

[Jekyll]

I didn't say a claim was evidence. I said personal testimonial was evidence. Further, though I didn't state it, I should have included the criteria of 'credible' along with that. Credible personal testimony is evidence. It is not proof. People can be mistaken.

Presumably you know of some evidence that shows people are more likely to dream of relatives who have just died than those who are dying but still alive. Otherwise your evidence just shows that people dream of their relatives when they are worried about them, and isn't indicative of an afterlife in any way.

[Skeptic Guy]

I didn't say a claim was evidence. I said personal testimonial was evidence. Further, though I didn't state it, I should have included the criteria of 'credible' along with that. Credible personal testimony is evidence. It is not proof. People can be mistaken.


Sorry, but I don't find that a credible claim. I don't know you personally and, given the context of our conversation, I suspect you are being facetious rather than sincere in making your claim. Hence, I don't believe you.

Different witnesses have different levels of credibility. Further, the crebility of a witness can vary tremendously depending on the circumstances. There are some very credible eye-witness accounts of everything from ghosts to UFO's to bigfeet. That doesn't make such claims true; as I said above, they could be (and probably are) mistaken. But it does mean that those claims have some evidence. I have yet to hear a credible witness sincerely claim to have personal experience with the IPU. That means that it has less evidence than do any of the other claims and it is not reasonable to equate the two as being equally likely.

You may, and may people do, consider the evidence for both the IPU and the afterlife as being close enough to zero as not worth distinguishing between. However, that doesn't mean they have equal amounts of evidence supporting them and it's incorrect to claim that they do.

I wouldn't define "personal testimonial" as evidence, especially catagorized as "credible" evidence. It's all anecdotal and would not hold up to scientific scrutiny. There may be personal testimony from people (who may be credible in their own right) that they saw something that they describe as a "UFO" or "Big Foot", but that adds nothing to the body of evidence that there are such things. It just means that they saw something they did not recognize and put it into a nice, convenient and descriptive "cubby".

I'm not sure how we could have anyone able to provide personal testimony as to life after death, unless they were dead, but that's a topic for another thread. For now, I would put it on the same level as a IPU.

[cyborg]

2,100,000,000 christians

I claim to be the only True Christian TM.

There are therefore an equal number of IPU believers and Christians.

I didn't say a claim was evidence. I said personal testimonial was evidence.

:rolleyes:

What is a claim if not a personal testimonial to the claim?

Further, though I didn't state it, I should have included the criteria of 'credible' along with that.

By what metric does one determine credibility? Seems like a moveable feast to me.

Sorry, but I don't find that a credible claim. I don't know you personally and, given the context of our conversation, I suspect you are being facetious rather than sincere in making your claim. Hence, I don't believe you.

Your belief is irrelevant. You cannot show that I am wrong - there is no science that can deal with it. You have to take it seriously because I take it seriously.

I have yet to hear a credible witness sincerely claim to have personal experience with the IPU.

Irrelevant to the truth of the IPU. You cannot show that I am wrong - there is no science that can deal with it. You have to take it seriously because I take it seriously.

However, that doesn't mean they have equal amounts of evidence supporting them and it's incorrect to claim that they do.

No. It's entirely correct. There is no evidence for what is claimed. Anyone can make a claim.

I saw a man die. Evidential personal testimony?

I saw a man die, then rise from the dead. Evidential personal testimony?

Sorry, I ain't going with the legalistic approach to evidence - that's fine for justice but I require a little more rigour for reality. That's kinda what makes me a skeptic in the first place.

[Ian Osborne]

Umm, no. It's that science can't find the supernatural, not that it can't explain it.

Precisely. If you don't think the supernatural can ever be explained, read the spells section of the Dungeons & Dragons manual. It functions as an excellent example of how magic can be analysed and quantified. If the supernatural was real, there's an excellent chance it could be codified in a similar way, even if its functionality lay outside the sphere of physics.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wouldn't define "personal testimonial" as evidence, especially catagorized as "credible" evidence. It's all anecdotal and would not hold up to scientific scrutiny. There may be personal testimony from people (who may be credible in their own right) that they saw something that they describe as a "UFO" or "Big Foot", but that adds nothing to the body of evidence that there are such things. It just means that they saw something they did not recognize and put it into a nice, convenient and descriptive "cubby".

I'm not sure how we could have anyone able to provide personal testimony as to life after death, unless they were dead, but that's a topic for another thread. For now, I would put it on the same level as a IPU.
There is that out of body experiment I described with the reader board message you can only see if you are floating above your body. The message changes randomly in one of the experiments.

Anecdotal evidence is used if you have systematic collection of data and controls to rule out other variables. In this case though it would be next to impossible to rule out selective memory if you interviewed people about past events. If you had infinite funds, time and access to a large enough study population who had relatives that were getting on in their years you could conceivably set up a prospective study.

Thanks re the IPU, by the way.

[Skeptic Guy]

There is that out of body experiment I described with the reader board message you can only see if you are floating above your body. The message changes randomly in one of the experiments.

Anecdotal evidence is used if you have systematic collection of data and controls to rule out other variables. In this case though it would be next to impossible to rule out selective memory if you interviewed people about past events. If you had infinite funds, time and access to a large enough study population who had relatives that were getting on in their years you could conceivably set up a prospective study.

Thanks re the IPU, by the way.

Skeptigirl, thanks for the information. I must have missed the out of body experiment you described. It sounds interesting. I'll go back through this thread (I skimmed quickly) to find it, unless it is somewhere else.

I have a question though. If the evidence has been systematically controlled to rule out variables, would it still be considered anecdotal? I cross-referenced with Wikipedia (yes, I know it's not accurate) and it defines anecdotal evidence as "unscientific" because it "cannot be investigated using the scientific method".

I don't know, I'm not a scientist so I ask.

And no problem on the IPU...I kind of like it.

[Beth]

IPU?

You are not describing evidence of an afterlife. You are describing events people have concluded are evidence. There is a difference.

No, it is still evidence. The evidence supports both hypotheses. One hypothesis is more likely than the other. But you cannot say that it is evidence when it supports the hypothesis you like and not evidence when it does not.


You have to show that your evidence supports your conclusion. For example, those supposed ghost hunters that run around measuring EMF and temperature variance have all failed to do the most basic science, that is show you are getting readings that one doesn't get in locations where there supposedly are no ghosts, IE control for other variables.

It is evidence that supports the conclusion. It is insufficient to prove the conclusion. You are demanding proof, not evidence. They are not interchangeable.

Credible sane people have testified they have personally experienced an interaction with the spirit of someone who has passed away. That is evidence for the afterlife that the IPU does not possess. I know of no credible sane person who has testified to a personal interaction with the IPU.

Dreams are in no way going to be acceptable evidence for obvious reasons. Now you have moved the goalposts. We were discussing whether or not such testimony constituted evidence, not whether it was evidence that you considered acceptable. It is perfectly reasonable for you to say that you don't consider such evidence acceptable and thus don't believe the claim of an afterlife. But it is incorrect to say that because the evidence is not acceptable to you that there is NO evidence or that the evidence for the afterlife and the evidence for the IPU are the same.

There are a few TV stories of the dead revealing their locations to psychics, there is all the John Edwards stuff, and there are a few TV versions of someone revealing something highly unusual such as the number to an unknown safe deposit box that is then found. The problem with these TV stories is they are highly distorted. We don't know what the real evidence actually was. But when you do try to verify the validity, you get nothing of substance. I'll agree with you there. But I wasn't discussing TV stories. I was mentioning people I personally know who have had experiences that convinced them that the human spirit continues on after death of the physical body. You can dismiss such evidence as anecdotal and unacceptable to you. But it's not reasonable to expect them to do the same. just because you find it unacceptable.

Then there are the NDEs (near death experiences). There are none of those that can't be explained by the person hearing the real world and dreaming the rest. And draining blood from one's brain in a G-force simulator has produced the tunnel and light experience. Currently there are a few experiments ongoing with a reader-board type message above eye level in EDs and ORs waiting for that one person who has an out of body experience to read the message. It hasn't happened yet. Call me when it does.

I am not claiming nor trying to convince you that an afterlife exists. I'm trying to convince you that such things as personal testimony regarding contact with deceased loved ones or near death experiences are, in fact, evidence in support of the hypothesis of an afterlife. They are not proof, they are not even convincing evidence - there are alternative explanations that cannot be ruled out - but they are evidence and the IPU does not possess even such meagre evidence as that. Thus, the evidence for the two are not equal.

[Wowbagger]

The problem with this is that being atheist does not imply that one is also skeptical.True. So, skeptical atheists can call themselves "Skeptical Atheists", if they want.

Though, I try to be a bit more diplomatic. I describe myself in one of two ways:
1. A "Scientific Agnostic", meaning that I live my life as if God does not exist, but know perfectly well that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Dawkins would call that a "De-facto Atheist”, but again, I would rather be a tad diplomatic, in how I present myself to others.
2. An "Armchair Scientist", meaning that I am not a professional scientist, but take a general interest in learning science, applying it in my everyday life whenever possible, and generally living a life of fun-filled investigation and scrutiny.

I use either one, depending on the audience.

Incidentally, I try to avoid using the word "Skeptic" to describe myself, because of the abuse the word has been given: conspiracy theorists, creationists, and global warming deniers also call themselves "skeptics". I would rather not be confused with any of them.

Go ahead and believe in your [homeopathy, conspiracy theories, etc] just don't claim you have evidence for those? Again, the difference is that homeopathy is potentially dangerous: it makes claims of efficacy that have been demonstrated false. And, conspiracy theories make claims of fact, that have been demonstrated false.

Two things about that. Firstly, I don't recall ever having met a christian who had a "vague belief in god" and we're talking about christians. Neither have I, (unless KittyNH counts?). But, does it really make a difference if the "vague belief in god" somewhat vaguely resembles Jesus, or a white-bearded spirit, or even a wad of spaghetti for all that it matters?

Secondly, being sceptical about everything but religion, then claiming to be a sceptic makes about as much sense as me claiming to be non-racist, then excusing my behaviour of abusing blacks on the grounds of, "its not racism, blacks commit all the crime". It's exactly the same as the term "christian". Anyone can claim to be that which they are not - it's their actions which give them away. There are different degrees of Skepticism, (and in fact different degrees of racism, not that any of them are valid)

If the person is (somehow, mysteriously) capable of holding a belief in God, and yet does not allow said belief to cloud their judgment of empirical facts, I still see no reason they can not call themselves a Skeptic, in principal.
I guess the key is that the belief has to be personal: Something they hold onto for whatever reasons they need to, just like a two-year-old clinging to a security blanket.
Penn and Teller once said: "Everybody's got a gris-gris", and that includes (almost?) all skeptics. Who are we to judge the gris-gris of someone else, as long as that gris-gris is harmless?

Scpeticism doesn't equal atheism, but must by its nature question religion, therefore agnosticism is a minimum requirement.

"Leaning towards belief" sits fine with being a sceptic; saying, "I love Jesus" does not.

I actually doubt that many atheists or sceptics demand that god does not exist. Those who do, as you suggest, are probably being as un-sceptical as christians. The first quote is somewhat true: However, I think there are believers who are not afraid to participate in discussions questioning religion. Some of my old Jewish friends are actually like that. They keep their personal beliefs personal, and in the realm of "spiritual", while acknowledging what goes on in the real world, according to science and history. It is weird, and possibly on the verge of doublethink, but it happens.

The second is more plausible, assuming your point is that one should not rely on Jesus to intervene in their lives.
But, there could be other reasons to "love Jesus" other than believing his spirit is helping you out.
I love Marvin the Paranoid Android (as portrayed in the novels, not the movie!), but I know perfectly well he is a fictitious character.
I love "Weird Al" Yankovic, but I don't bow before photos of him, in prayer; nor do I expect him to cure my ailing friends and relatives.

The third quote I agree with 100%.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't find any published accounts of the experiment in question. I have heard speakers at at least one conference state they were doing the experiment. It doesn't surprise me they've had nothing to publish yet. Nor would it surprise me for them to be doing this experiment in a less than public way considering the peer pressure to scoff at such work.

We have a local doctor who collected the NDE accounts of children and wrote a book. I've heard him speak many years ago.

Anyway, you won't find a link but I will keep looking when I have more time. If anyone else has a link that would be nice. I found mention of one experiment in the 70s but fraud was suspected so it isn't worth trying to track down.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Beth, conclusions are not evidence. Perhaps that will make my point more clear.

I have to go but will try to reply in more detail later tonight.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wowbagger, surely you aren't suggesting religion is always innocuous?

I'll reply further to your post later as well.

[Slimething]

I've gotten into this discussion with science purists before. If you propose nothing but a soul, then there is no test. But then if there is no evidence of a soul, why bother entertaining the idea? And if there is evidence, then it's testable.

Yes, I guess I would fall into the "science purist" category as I am a chemist and science is my livelihood and vocation. Does that statement somehow detract from my viewpoint? Why do you even bring it up? If your viewpoint is different than a "science purist", perhaps you should reevaluate the "science" part of or your argument for rigor.

But, you and I don't disagree. Even a "science purist" would agree that a posit must be testable for it to be tested.

And even when there is no evidence other than some "inner feeling" that brain function is most certainly testable.

Well, yes, science can detect brain activity. So what? How does that confirm or negate a supernatural belief?

And what most people leave out when excusing science from having to confront religious beliefs besides the things that are supposed to happen which don't, is the fact science can look at beliefs and religions and come up with evidence supporting alternative explanations for those while there is no evidence actual gods are the source of the beliefs and religions.

No one needs to "excuse" science. What you are writing about is that science can confront falsifiable claims made by the religious. That is very true and it has mostly been done. Maybe not to your satisfaction but science is expensive so most scientists won't propose an infrared satellite fly-by of the Middle East to disprove an idiot coworker's insistence that Sodom and Gommorah really existed. And, if they did, they probably wouldn't report it as they would surely be canned for using public resources in such a fashion.

Yes, claims by bible literalists can be debunked, and rather easily, but how about the more intelligent and literate believers who take the bible as allegory? I would no longer be able to quote the bible's falsifiable claims as proof of errancy because they would only smile at me and tell me it's just a fable that showed god's omnipotence.

It doesn't matter what excuse you want to come up with about why studies fail to find any real effect of prayer, what matters is what is believed about prayer fails the test of real effect.

Well, yes and no. I think science has proven that praying for someone else does nothing for the target individual. But how about the benefit to the prayor? Prayer is a form of meditation and the soothing effects of such are well known to medical science as beneficial. You and I know that there's nothing supernatural about this but the believers will say that their explanation is just as valid. I would not be able to offer evidence to the contrary to that individual. They just say "god sometimes says no or doesn't respond".


If you want to propose a god that doesn't interact with the Universe or a god that covers its tracks so as to not be detectable, then science has nothing to test. No religion I'm aware of describes such a god or gods.


I'm not religious. Neither do I know of any large, organized religion that is based on an absentee god but there must be someone somewhere who may believe in this stuff. You've seen quite a bit of woo so I don't think it would surprise you. It wouldn't surprise me either.

Some people like to stretch the faith angle and even go so far as to claim dinosaur fossils are there to test one's faith. In that scenario, you have a god that wishes you to believe in him while actually trying to convince you he doesn't exist. Nothing in the Bible I'm aware of supports this view.

True, but you've got to admit that a joker god would be a heck of a lot more fun to believe in than the @55h0le most people worship.

If you have some actual evidence that proves me wrong, that might also qualify for that million, though I'm not sure.

I'm not a believer. I pretty much agree with everything you've written but I wanted to point out that there are certain tenets of religion that science cannot test and, therefore, cannot debunk. Not yet anyway.

[Beth]

Beth, conclusions are not evidence. Perhaps that will make my point more clear.

I have to go but will try to reply in more detail later tonight.

I agree. Conclusions are not evidence. But credible personal testimony is evidence. Not proof, just evidence to be considered when coming to conclusions. If you choose to give such evidence little to no weight, that's perfectly all right. It's when you jump to the conclusion that is not evidence at all that I object.

[Azure]

Umm, no. It's that science can't find the supernatural, not that it can't explain it.

The contradictions between quantum physics and general relativity haven't been resolved yet. It doesn't matter, it's still all natural.

The reason that the afterlife is consider 'supernatural' is because no one has been able to show it exists.

Next.

Thank you very much.

And science will 'never' be able to show that the supernatural exists, because there is no plausible, or scientific way to do that.

[Wowbagger]

Wowbagger, surely you aren't suggesting religion is always innocuous?
Of course not!!! Read my other posts!

Beliefs are only innocuous when at least two factors are true:
1. They are not doing anything that would cause harm to anyone.
2. They are not making claims of fact that are demonstratably false.

What kind if sicko did you think I was?!

[quixotecoyote]

Thank you very much.

And science will 'never' be able to show that the supernatural exists, because there is no plausible, or scientific way to do that.

In doing this you end up defining supernatural = irrelevant, because if science can never show that the supernatural exists then the supernatural must no effect in the physical world, otherwise science should theoretically be able to identify it. By your definition you turn the supernatural into a philosophy game. Of course I don't know if that was your intent, so if it was, congratulations.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree. Conclusions are not evidence. But credible personal testimony is evidence. Not proof, just evidence to be considered when coming to conclusions. If you choose to give such evidence little to no weight, that's perfectly all right. It's when you jump to the conclusion that is not evidence at all that I object.I don't deny the anecdote, but without the conclusion then what evidence is left? Nothing which indicates an afterlife.

You understand that the conclusion is not evidence then you fail to separate what the person relates as having occurred with what the person believes it meant.

You have a person, using your example, who had a dream about their loved one the night of the loved one's death. That is the evidence. It is not evidence of an afterlife, it is evidence of a dream. It has nothing to do with the 'strength' of the evidence, it has to do with what one can and cannot infer from the event. You can draw any conclusion you want but the conclusion is not evidence.

This is the same thing as the ghost hunters testing for cold spots in a room. They have evidence of cold spots. That is the limit of the conclusion one can draw from that evidence. You could do more tests and determine more about the cold spots. But you cannot just conclude the cold spot represents a ghost. The evidence does not support that conclusion. And neither does a dream about a love one.

You need to establish criteria you will measure but you also have to show in some way that your criteria actually supports any conclusion you draw from it. It's a common error in research to draw conclusions that cannot be shown to be supported by the evidence.

[RandomElement]

Conclusions are not evidence. But credible personal testimony is evidence. Not proof, just evidence to be considered when coming to conclusions. If you choose to give such evidence little to no weight, that's perfectly all right. It's when you jump to the conclusion that is not evidence at all that I object.

Do you doubt that these same people have been sure of something in the past that was later proven to be incorrect?

How can the experience of a live, albeit oxygen-starved brain, tell us anything of a dimension after death? Why is the information "brought back" either already known or a false prophecy?

The credible testimony is not actually in question. Skeptics do not doubt these folks experienced a white light phenomenon; they doubt the conclusion of these witnesses.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course not!!! Read my other posts!

Beliefs are only innocuous when at least two factors are true:
1. They are not doing anything that would cause harm to anyone.
2. They are not making claims of fact that are demonstratably false.

What kind if sicko did you think I was?!

Well I was responding to this exchange:

Originally Posted by Wowbagger
...it ought to be JREF's position not to judge people, and only concern itself with what can be tested. That means folks with any semblence of belief in God should feel welcomed, (as long as they don't claim to have evidence of God, and then not actually have any when asked to present it).

If you want to start an athiests-only organization, go right ahead.
I try to confine my comments to the evidence and not the believer. We all need reminders of this from time to time. But why single out religious beliefs here over other woo beliefs?

Go ahead and believe in your [homeopathy, conspiracy theories, etc] just don't claim you have evidence for those?In other words I was asking how you were distinguishing between woo that was open to discussion and belief in gods that it seemed you were saying was qualitatively different.

Wowbagger:
Again, the difference is that homeopathy is potentially dangerous: it makes claims of efficacy that have been demonstrated false. And, conspiracy theories make claims of fact, that have been demonstrated false.
So I replied:
Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Wowbagger, surely you aren't suggesting religion is always innocuous?

And I was in a hurry. Perhaps you could elaborate since I seem to have misunderstood.

I'm trying to get at why and/or when do you think religious beliefs are not fair game for skeptics, (if I may put it in those terms)?

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it is still evidence. The evidence supports both hypotheses. One hypothesis is more likely than the other. But you cannot say that it is evidence when it supports the hypothesis you like and not evidence when it does not. ...

It is evidence that supports the conclusion. It is insufficient to prove the conclusion. You are demanding proof, not evidence. They are not interchangeable. I can see the disconnect we are having here but I'm not sure if my last two posts clarified things. You have not provided any logical reason why the dream the person had is evidence of anything more than a dream.

Credible sane people have testified they have personally experienced an interaction with the spirit of someone who has passed away. That is evidence for the afterlife that the IPU does not possess. I know of no credible sane person who has testified to a personal interaction with the IPU. Again, you are not separating the event from the conclusion. The person experienced something. But you have to show the experience was specific to communicating with a deceased person.

I understand what you are saying I think. You are saying these experiences are enough to entertain the idea there is an afterlife and I m saying why even consider an afterlife since there is no real evidence of one.

In this case, you are providing evidence of why people believe in ghosts, but you really don't have evidence of ghosts there, you have evidence of a dream or some other experience the person "concluded" was an encounter.

Now you have moved the goalposts. We were discussing whether or not such testimony constituted evidence, not whether it was evidence that you considered acceptable. It is perfectly reasonable for you to say that you don't consider such evidence acceptable and thus don't believe the claim of an afterlife. But it is incorrect to say that because the evidence is not acceptable to you that there is NO evidence or that the evidence for the afterlife and the evidence for the IPU are the same. This is the same thing, dream anecdotes are evidence of dreams. What a person believes the dream meant is not evidence of that thing. It is the person's conclusion about the dream and conclusions are not evidence.

I'll agree with you there. But I wasn't discussing TV stories. I was mentioning people I personally know who have had experiences that convinced them that the human spirit continues on after death of the physical body. You can dismiss such evidence as anecdotal and unacceptable to you. But it's not reasonable to expect them to do the same. just because you find it unacceptable.


I am not claiming nor trying to convince you that an afterlife exists. I'm trying to convince you that such things as personal testimony regarding contact with deceased loved ones or near death experiences are, in fact, evidence in support of the hypothesis of an afterlife. They are not proof, they are not even convincing evidence - there are alternative explanations that cannot be ruled out - but they are evidence and the IPU does not possess even such meagre evidence as that. Thus, the evidence for the two are not equal.It isn't that the evidence is anecdotal, it's that the conclusion is not supported.

If I wore my hat backward and my team won, and I believe the hat had something to do with it, is that anecdotal evidence the hat had an effect on the outcome of the game? No, it is evidence I drew a conclusion, but my conclusion doesn't make the hat position evidence it had an effect.

On the other hand, if a couple of doctors report that their patients experienced dizziness after taking a medicine and that side effect was not expected, their reports are anecdotal evidence suggesting the medicine might have been the cause. In that case, it is weak anecdotal evidence and further testing is needed, but there is a reason to connect the dizziness with the medication. It may or may not turn out to be a coincidence but we have already established other medicines cause dizziness and these patients took a medicine.

In your dream anecdote and my hat anecdote, there is no established relationship and the evidence does not support the conclusions.

[cgallaga]

Wow you have all been quite busy while I was away. :)

No it isn't, that's nonsense. First, things which have not yet been discovered are not "outside" the scope of understanding. Outside implies we will never get there.

Convenient (though perhaps dishonest) of you to ignore the pertinent word CURRENT in my posts, thus changing my point into one you were more comfortable attacking, even though no one actually made the point you then addressed...is that a straw man your killing there or do my eyes deceive? :confused:

To claim skepticism is all about doubt is to only see one side of skepticism. Skepticism is about belief in an evidence based world. That's the one point where belief comes in. Once you conclude the best way to understand the world is to actually observe it, you have science and not faith as your guiding premise.

Hmmm am I to believe your definition of skepticism or all the more universally agreed upon and therefore more formal ones out here? :boggled:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/skepcont.htm
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/SKEPT.HTM
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to

1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object,
2. the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, or
3. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).


You are confusing the mysteries of the world which we have discovered by the evidence and mysteries people just make up. There's a big difference.
I assure you I have every bit of respect for the mysteries of the world, so much so in fact that I am willing to admit ignorance, and to doubt that we have much of the mystery figured out. But you may be confusing our our elusive knowledge and interpretation of experience with immutable fact. Me I doubt it.

This is not what skeptics do. Skeptics would say the evidence does not support that conclusion. If you think skeptics just reject claims they perceive as woo, you miss the whole point about the scientific process and evidence.

Hmmm another straw man there huh? Don't be greedy, one per rebuttal should be enough for anyone. While I never said anything otherwise, I agree that skeptics would not reject any claim offhand, but I would add that they also would also by necessity turn their doubt onto their own scope and ability of knowing.

I am beginning to understand where it is that YOU are confused. You seem to have equated skepticism with scientific empiricism. Don't blush, it may be a more common mistake than you are aware of. Many skeptics will use empirical methods to try to gauge what is knowable and to what degree, so it is not uncommon for some to confuse the servant with the master. ;)

No, you couldn't be more wrong here. Skepticism is a belief (and that's the only place belief comes in) that the world can best be understood by careful observation and by using the scientific process to collect evidence which reveals it. Conclusions are drawn from that evidence. But the difference between a conclusion and a belief is a conclusion is supported by evidence and when additional evidence suggests an alternative conclusion, one accepts the alternative.

That isn't to say there are perfect skeptics free from errors in conclusions or free from underlying beliefs which interfere with interpretation of evidence. That much I'll give you.

You are very generous in giving me something I didn't need or ask for. :D But again you seem to have confused scientific empiricism (the empirical method) a tool; with skepticism, which is not a belief but a foundation of doubt. Skepticism in its basic form is not belief but quite the opposite. Skepticism is doubt. :p

You may find it interesting to know that there are very intelligent skeptics who doubt that empiricism is the bees knees of philosophical thought, maybe this is because, unlike skepticism, empiricism starts with a double standard. It uses apriori reasoning to exclude all other apriori reasoning. It says, apriori,: everything is part of an external reality that is measurable by the senses and no other reality exists. But this first empirical claim can not itself be tested empirically. It amounts to an unprovable, untestable, unfalsifiable, belief. :jaw-dropp

So why do you believe that this is very different from, say a Gnostic Christian belief that god is a transcendent entity, one that we can never fully grasp, one so beyond our understanding that we can not make any accurate claims about it, and that this entity can only be known through introspection?

And for those keeping score, there are many forms of monotheistic belief that posit a god that does not act in the material realm, but they do posit other realms of reality.

[The Atheist]

Incidentally, I try to avoid using the word "Skeptic" to describe myself, because of the abuse the word has been given: conspiracy theorists, creationists, and global warming deniers also call themselves "skeptics". I would rather not be confused with any of them.

Not a word I use myself to any degree, either.

If the person is (somehow, mysteriously) capable of holding a belief in God, and yet does not allow said belief to cloud their judgment of empirical facts, I still see no reason they can not call themselves a Skeptic, in principal.

I guess the key is that the belief has to be personal: Something they hold onto for whatever reasons they need to, just like a two-year-old clinging to a security blanket.

You'll get no argument from me on the blanky, I use that term a lot. I find it very hard to take adults with blankies seriously, hence my reluctance to accord them a title which doesn't just suggest rational analysis, but demands it - "Skeptic". As far as christianity goes, it isn't a lack of empirical facts - which is handy since they're impossible - but that christians delude themselves that that little voice in the left rear of the brain is actually god.

Penn and Teller once said: "Everybody's got a gris-gris", and that includes (almost?) all skeptics. Who are we to judge the gris-gris of someone else, as long as that gris-gris is harmless?

Yep.

Some of my old Jewish friends are actually like that. They keep their personal beliefs personal, and in the realm of "spiritual", while acknowledging what goes on in the real world, according to science and history. It is weird, and possibly on the verge of doublethink, but it happens.

There's another term I use constantly. I have a couple of guys with whom I have marvellous discussions at the Ship of Fools site. They are dead-set geniuses with enormous publication lists, yet worship a dead Jew. One of them is so smart it hurts just reading his quals!

But, there could be other reasons to "love Jesus" other than believing his spirit is helping you out.

I suggest that most thoughtful christians would see that as an un-christian attitude anyway.

I love Marvin the Paranoid Android (as portrayed in the novels, not the movie!), but I know perfectly well he is a fictitious character.

There was a movie? Of HHGTTG? Wow. Radio, scripts, book, tv series, sure. Movie......

NOT!

You know Marvin was originally only for one scene of the radio series, but was so popular Adams wrote him into the rest of it?

I worship Zaphod Beeblebrox. (The Nothingth)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, I guess I would fall into the "science purist" category as I am a chemist and science is my livelihood and vocation. Does that statement somehow detract from my viewpoint? Why do you even bring it up? If your viewpoint is different than a "science purist", perhaps you should reevaluate the "science" part of or your argument for rigor.

But, you and I don't disagree. Even a "science purist" would agree that a posit must be testable for it to be tested.

Well, yes, science can detect brain activity. So what? How does that confirm or negate a supernatural belief?

No one needs to "excuse" science. What you are writing about is that science can confront falsifiable claims made by the religious. That is very true and it has mostly been done. Maybe not to your satisfaction but science is expensive so most scientists won't propose an infrared satellite fly-by of the Middle East to disprove an idiot coworker's insistence that Sodom and Gommorah really existed. And, if they did, they probably wouldn't report it as they would surely be canned for using public resources in such a fashion.

Yes, claims by bible literalists can be debunked, and rather easily, but how about the more intelligent and literate believers who take the bible as allegory? I would no longer be able to quote the bible's falsifiable claims as proof of errancy because they would only smile at me and tell me it's just a fable that showed god's omnipotence.

Well, yes and no. I think science has proven that praying for someone else does nothing for the target individual. But how about the benefit to the prayor? Prayer is a form of meditation and the soothing effects of such are well known to medical science as beneficial. You and I know that there's nothing supernatural about this but the believers will say that their explanation is just as valid. I would not be able to offer evidence to the contrary to that individual. They just say "god sometimes says no or doesn't respond".

I'm not religious. Neither do I know of any large, organized religion that is based on an absentee god but there must be someone somewhere who may believe in this stuff. You've seen quite a bit of woo so I don't think it would surprise you. It wouldn't surprise me either.

True, but you've got to admit that a joker god would be a heck of a lot more fun to believe in than the @55h0le most people worship.

I'm not a believer. I pretty much agree with everything you've written but I wanted to point out that there are certain tenets of religion that science cannot test and, therefore, cannot debunk. Not yet anyway.

When I speak of science purists, I don't mean I disagree with the important premise of falsifiability. What I mean is people often bring that up as a blanket response to testing for gods. I have already stated in this thread a number of things one can do to analyze theism using the scientific process. The evidence supports theism is a man made construct and not the result of real gods. That seems to get left out of the "can't test for gods" discussions most of the time.

A god that interacts with the Universe should be detectable unless it covers its tracks. Regardless of your hypothesis, 'there must be someone somewhere who believes in such a deity', the overwhelming majority of religions do not include gods who cover their tracks and who don't interact with the Universe. And the majority of beliefs in gods come from religion based deities. So my point is who cares about the god you can't test for, that isn't what people believe in. They believe in a god that is interacting with them. And such an interaction should be testable.

And prayer that benefits the prayor, just as the social interaction at church seems to have positive influence, is fine, it just isn't evidence of gods.

"believers will say that their explanation is just as valid. I would not be able to offer evidence to the contrary to that individual. They just say "god sometimes says no or doesn't respond"."

Believers say all sorts of things. I don't discuss the scientific process and religious beliefs with any goal of showing religious people they believe in false things. Teenagers and god believers are very good at rationalizing. I bring this topic up because, as I said, I think the frequently heard skeptic claim of gods not being testable ignores the god of peoples' religions and beliefs in favor of a scientific construct god that isn't within the universe of science. The latter god isn't the one people believe in.

I'm also not proposing anyone waste research resources looking for evidence of gods, but by the same token, I have no qualms challenging the idea there is any reason a skeptic should find gods believable.

[The Atheist]

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

[cgallaga]

:) Brilliant line from a brilliant author

[Ivor the Engineer]

Perhaps a more constructive course of action is for people to offer definitions of what applying the word ‘Sceptic’ to oneself actually implies. Dictionary.com has these:

–noun

1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.


4. (initial capital letter ) Philosophy.

a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.

b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.


–adjective

5. pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.

6. (initial capital letter ) pertaining to the Skeptics.


And from: http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=skeptic&action=Search+OMD

skeptic

1. One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

2. <psychology> A doubter as to whether any fact or truth can be certainly known; a universal doubter; a Pyrrhonist; hence, in modern usage, occasionally, a person who questions whether any truth or fact can be established on philosophical grounds; sometimes, a critical inquirer, in opposition to a dogmatist. "All this criticism [of Hume] proceeds upon the erroneous hypothesis that he was a dogmatist. He was a skeptic; that is, he accepted the principles asserted by the prevailing dogmatism: and only showed that such and such conclusions were, on these principles, inevitable." (Sir W. Hamilton)

3. A person who doubts the existence and perfections of God, or the truth of revelation; one who disbelieves the divine origin of the Christian religion. "Suffer not your faith to be shaken by the sophistries of skeptics." (S. Clarke)

This word and its derivatives are often written with c instead of k in the first syllable, sceptic, sceptical, scepticism, etc. Dr. Johnson, struck with the extraordinary irregularity of giving c its hard sound before e, altered the spelling, and his example has been followed by most of the lexicographers who have succeeded him; yet the prevalent practice among English writers and printers is in favor of the other mode. In the United States this practice is reversed, a large and increasing majority of educated persons preferring the orthography which is most in accordance with etymology and analogy.

Synonym: Infidel, unbeliever, doubter. See Infidel.

Origin: Gr. Skeptikos thoughtful, reflective, fr. Skeptesqai to look carefully or about, to view, consider: cf. L. Scepticus, F. Sceptique. See Scope

Alternative forms: sceptic.

Source: Websters Dictionary

(01 Mar 1998)

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Convenient (though perhaps dishonest) of you to ignore the pertinent word CURRENT in my posts, thus changing my point into one you were more comfortable attacking, even though no one actually made the point you then addressed...is that a straw man your killing there or do my eyes deceive? :confused: This is rather conspiratorial here. Did you entertain the hypothesis I was replying to what I thought you were saying or did you only entertain the hypothesis I "conveniently" and "dishonestly" changed your "point into one [I was] more comfortable attacking"?

This is one of those reasons people end up in tiffs and flame wars. I'm not in a competition here. I didn't understand your claim of strawmen earlier and this one is constructed of just a tad of paranoia.

So instead of going the direction of debate warrior, how about starting with the premise people interpret what they read and hear differently than the person who wrote it or spoke it had in mind. That is unless you can do a Vulcan mindmeld. Sometimes there is more and sometimes less agreement on both ends of the communication line.

It's only a discussion. Why would I need to win brownie points changing your statement to one I could attack or whatever the hell it is you think I've conspired to do?

...Hmmm am I to believe your definition of skepticism or all the more universally agreed upon and therefore more formal ones out here? :boggled: The word skeptic has been adopted by the community, it isn't that we are the dictionary definition of skeptic. In my view, skeptics, in this context, have the belief the world is best understood through the scientific process and we live in an evidence based world.

.......

I am beginning to understand where it is that YOU are confused. You seem to have equated skepticism with scientific empiricism. Don't blush, it may be a more common mistake than you are aware of. Many skeptics will use empirical methods to try to gauge what is knowable and to what degree, so it is not uncommon for some to confuse the servant with the master. ;) You are welcome to hold any view of a skeptic you wish. I do indeed equate it with scientific empiricism. What difference does it make?

And as for the "tool" I view science as a process.

..You may find it interesting to know that there are very intelligent skeptics who doubt that empiricism is the bees knees of philosophical thought, maybe this is because, unlike skepticism, empiricism starts with a double standard. It uses apriori reasoning to exclude all other apriori reasoning. It says, apriori,: everything is part of an external reality that is measurable by the senses and no other reality exists. But this first empirical claim can not itself be tested empirically. It amounts to an unprovable, untestable, unfalsifiable, belief. :jaw-dropp I don't bother with these philosophical arguments, they serve little purpose. I take a very practical approach. I wouldn't argue with your view here, but I don't hold it.

What do the above statements about skepticism or the scientific process or your philosophical discussion of empiricism matter? In other words, what's your point?

..So why do you believe that this is very different from, say a Gnostic Christian belief that god is a transcendent entity, one that we can never fully grasp, one so beyond our understanding that we can not make any accurate claims about it, and that this entity can only be known through introspection?

And for those keeping score, there are many forms of monotheistic belief that posit a god that does not act in the material realm, but they do posit other realms of reality.Either you have a god that causes an effect or you don't. If the god is all belief and philosophy and no physical presence, then what's the point in the belief? If the god does something, it would be detectable.

Frankly I find the claim of believing in a god that becomes more and more nebulous as more and more evidence fails to support the previous god construct to be rationalizing one's unsupported belief.

You still haven't addressed the fact that religion and belief in gods is better explained as a man-made construct than one which developed from experience with real gods.

[cgallaga]

This is rather conspiratorial here. Did you entertain the hypothesis I was replying to what I thought you were saying or did you only entertain the hypothesis I "conveniently" and "dishonestly" changed your "point into one [I was] more comfortable attacking"?

This is one of those reasons people end up in tiffs and flame wars. I'm not in a competition here. I didn't understand your claim of strawmen earlier and this one is constructed of just a tad of paranoia.

So instead of going the direction of debate warrior, how about starting with the premise people interpret what they read and hear differently than the person who wrote it or spoke it had in mind. That is unless you can do a Vulcan mindmeld. Sometimes there is more and sometimes less agreement on both ends of the communication line.

It's only a discussion. Why would I need to win brownie points changing your statement to one I could attack or whatever the hell it is you think I've conspired to do?

Sorry you didn't "interpret my words differently" you deleted a key word in the sentence and then attacked a sentence that you made up from the remains. That is the classic definition of a straw man argument, not paranoia on my part. And the attack to my person... evidence that you are trying to score debate points instead of addressing the issues...rather than taking some high road you are suggesting you are taking.

And my stated confusion, my skepticism as it were, about your motive should have been enough to demonstrate that I was not fond of counter attack and more than willing to entertain an honest mistake. But my doubt about that is waning.

The word skeptic has been adopted by the community, it isn't that we are the dictionary definition of skeptic. Well then, if we are going to forgo defining terms then lets go all the way and call the group a Christian organization shall we? That will solve and answer the whole thread in one go! :D

I don't bother with these philosophical arguments, they serve little purpose. I take a very practical approach. I wouldn't argue with your view here, but I don't hold it.

What do the above statements about skepticism or the scientific process or your philosophical discussion of empiricism matter? In other words, what's your point?

The whole thread is a philosophical argument. Can a Christian be a skeptic! My point is YES!

Either you have a god that causes an effect or you don't. If the god is all belief and philosophy and no physical presence, then what's the point in the belief? If the god does something, it would be detectable.

Frankly I find the claim of believing in a god that becomes more and more nebulous as more and more evidence fails to support the previous god construct to be rationalizing one's unsupported belief.

You still haven't addressed the fact that religion and belief in gods is better explained as a man-made construct than one which developed from experience with real gods.

This is all off topic, (the topic being can one be a skeptic and Christian) but you might as well replace god with Space, Time, the singularity that expanded into space and time, or even a quantum probability wave. Yes you apparently don't have a problem with those "beliefs and philosophy and no physical presence."

[Antiquehunter]

As a definition of 'Skeptic' as it pertains to our community, I recommend

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html and
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html

To summarize my POV - can a Christian be a skeptic? Sort of. If their definition of Christianity is highly customized and rationalized, and/or they freely admit that they are choosing to suspend their skepticism as it pertains to Christianity - or have crafted a definition of Christianity that defies an ability to frame a testable position - then yep. Barely.

But its a stretch.

Much easier to just come to the dark side... (Luke I am your father)

-AH.

[TheBoyPaj]

I agree. Conclusions are not evidence. But credible personal testimony is evidence. Not proof, just evidence to be considered when coming to conclusions.

How can a personal testimony be credible at all, when it is subject to sensory trickery, misremembering of events and mental abberations? It does not matter how respectable the witness is, they are still fallible and it does not make sense to build a case on such questionable testimony.

[cgallaga]

How can a personal testimony be credible at all, when it is subject to sensory trickery, misremembering of events and mental abberations? It does not matter how respectable the witness is, they are still fallible and it does not make sense to build a case on such questionable testimony.

So throw out the entire criminal justice system everywhere! :rolleyes:

[Antiquehunter]

An eyewitness account of 'I saw that man pull out a gun and shoot the victim three times' is an entirely different scenario than 'I saw the hand of god descend from the heavens and stop the speeding train from squashing my baby.'

The first account is reasonable. The second account significantly changes what we know as a species about the planet. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Or alternately the acceptance that one cannot evidence ones claim and that they lie within the perview of belief. This is where the issue comes down for me. Christians or any religious person who understands the limitations of the scientific method, and the fact that their beliefs are just that, and as long as their beliefs remain theological and don't cross into woo (Buddhists who think they can levitate, preachers who think they can faith heal or Young Earth Creationists for example) should be welcomed if they have issues with the many other topics Skeptics are concerned about like Alt-Med, UFOlogy, Psi, ESP, Cryptozoology, scams, MLMs, etc. etc.

[cgallaga]

I have no qualms with either of the last two posts. ;)

But towards the discussion of skepticism and Christianity (or any number of other beliefs) there is another form of testimony and evidence. Personal experience.

So if through meditation and prayer a person feels a spiritual connection to the divine, believes they get a peek through the veils...they have a religious experience. That experience can and often is the strongest source of their personal belief in a divine essence.

If that person understands that there is no way for them to use that as a proof to others, that it is a subjective experience, and while it is full of meaning and import to them, it has no claim on our shared reality, then that person can well be a skeptic and a believer all in the same mind.

[Gurdur]

How can a personal testimony be credible at all,
I would be fascinated to know if you think there is anything such as impersonal testimony.
:)
Surely you are aware that all perception communicated through language that we know of is human perception, which means all testimony is subjective and personal?

To make that clearer: all language-based communication is subjective and originally personal. Even science is based on human perception, which is why intersubjectivity is such an important concept and thusly the exact reason why peer review is so important in science.
it does not make sense to build a case on such questionable testimony.
Well, if you have access to some genuinely objective testimony of any kind at all to build any case upon at all, I really think you should share the source with us.
:)
_____________

Getting back to the topic: I'm quite amused on this thread by several claims on this thread that regard science as some kind of new religion, and include the astonishing and very unscientific claims that science can answer all questions, including implicitly why rhubarb is fit for neither man nor beast (a question purely of aesthetics), and including explicitly that science can tell you what makes a "good partner" --- when in fact the actual definition of "good" is a wholly subjective and intersubjective concept that necessarily involves personal bias and taste, areas which science can only at the very best observe but not decide.

Science does not define the term "good". Helloooo?!

[Jekyll]

Thank you very much.

And science will 'never' be able to show that the supernatural exists, because there is no plausible, or scientific way to do that.

Sorry, but you're running the implications backwards here. Things are supernatural if they have not been shown to exist.

There's no reason to claim that they can not be shown to exist unless you don't think they're there at all.

There's always a chance Bigfoot could found in the mountains or a werewolf caught and caged. Unless you don't think they're real.

[Beth]

I can see the disconnect we are having here but I'm not sure if my last two posts clarified things. You have not provided any logical reason why the dream the person had is evidence of anything more than a dream.

Again, you are not separating the event from the conclusion. The person experienced something. But you have to show the experience was specific to communicating with a deceased person.

I understand what you are saying I think. You are saying these experiences are enough to entertain the idea there is an afterlife and I m saying why even consider an afterlife since there is no real evidence of one.

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm try again. For brevity, I'm only going to respond to what I feel is the key point I'm trying to make. Please feel free to redirection my attention to a key point you feel I've missed.

If I wore my hat backward and my team won, and I believe the hat had something to do with it, is that anecdotal evidence the hat had an effect on the outcome of the game? No, it is evidence I drew a conclusion, but my conclusion doesn't make the hat position evidence it had an effect.
....
In your dream anecdote and my hat anecdote, there is no established relationship and the evidence does not support the conclusions.

Yes, it is evidence that the hat had an effect on the game. It is not proof. It is not particularly convincing evidence. But it is still evidence.

Consider this: If you wore the hat backwards on 50 occasions and not on 50 occasions and your team won on the 50 games you wore it backwards and lost the other 50, that would be fairly convincing evidence that something was going on between the way you wore your hat and your team winning. The correlation would be far too unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.

You can't claim that the wearing of the hat and the outcome of the game is evidence in one case but not the other. It is evidence in both cases. It is convincing evidence in one case and unconvincing evidence in the other, but it evidence in both cases.

There need be no established causal relationship in order to something to constitute evidence. There need only be a hypothesized relationship. Dreams have a very long history - throughout recorded human history in fact - of having such a hypothesized relationship with the "spirit realm" shall we say. Thus, such dreams are indeed evidence of an afterlife. They are not convincing evidence but they are evidence.

You are, I think, confusing evidence that you evaluate as having a value of zero to contribute to the proposed hypothesis with the absence of evidence. The IPU has an zero evidence. The afterlife has evidence that you weight as having zero value.

The distinction between those two zeros is important because to evaluate the evidence and give it zero weight is taking it seriously as evidence and recognizing the fact that reasonable people may differ in their opinion of the weight it should have. You can then discuss whether or not your evaluation is correct or not.

When you claim the evidence does not exist, you close the door to productive discussion with someone who disagrees with your evaluation of the evidence because you are ignoring the evidence. It is every bit as frustrating to those who would discuss the matter intelligently as a creationist who ignores the evidence for evolution is. If you can get him to admit the evidence exists, you can then discuss his evaluation of that evidence. But when he claims it doesn't exist, it pretty much limits the conversation to "does so" "does not" "does so" "does not".

[Wowbagger]

I'm trying to get at why and/or when do you think religious beliefs are not fair game for skeptics, (if I may put it in those terms)?
Beliefs are always fair game for skeptics to question, investigate, etc. However, there is a difference between "exploring beliefs" and "disavowing someone as a skeptic, simply because they hold a rather innocuous form of belief".
(Again, innocuous defined as "not hurting anyone" and "not making false claims of 'facts'".)

Skeptics have every right to choose not to be friends with "believers" if they don't want to. But, to kick them out of the "club" completely, just for that, seems rather unfair.

Skeptics do have every right to disavow those who insight violence against others, or try to push faith-based arguments as "truths", or try to claim quack remedies as efficacious, etc. Those folks you can kick out, and kick them good, if you must.

Someone posted, here, that "atheist" doesn't always mean "Skeptic". To add to that, I don't think the word "Skeptic" should always mean "atheist" or even "agnostic", either.

I don't claim to know much about how someone can split the realms of their thought like that: To function perfectly well as a skeptic, and still hold on to some belief in God. But, I think we've seen it happen.

And, (although this may sound like Argument from Authority), it seems most of the top Skeptics would agree with all this. I remember at TAM4, Hal Bidlack giving his speech professing his belief in God. Then, right after, there was a panel discussion asking "Can a Skeptic Believe in God?". And, the answer coming out of virtually everyone on the panel was essentially "Yeah... why not?".

I may be a "de-facto atheist"*, but I will still defend a responsible adult's right to believe in God, if they want to.

(*which is not what I usually call myself. See one of my previous posts for that.)

I don't drink alcohol, either, but I will still defend a responsible adult's right to drink such stuff. (as long as they do so responsibly, you see.)

I am not gay, but I will still defend a responsible adult's right to have a consensual relationship with any other responsible adult, no matter what their genders happen to be.

[Wowbagger]

You'll get no argument from me on the blanky, I use that term a lot. I find it very hard to take adults with blankies seriously, hence my reluctance to accord them a title which doesn't just suggest rational analysis, but demands it - "Skeptic". You will find few Skeptics with no gris-gris of some sort.

I, for one, still recycle. :blush:

As far as christianity goes, it isn't a lack of empirical facts - which is handy since they're impossible - but that christians delude themselves that that little voice in the left rear of the brain is actually god. Perhaps someone claiming a voice in their mind is God is going over the edge, and should not be considered a real skeptic.
But, not all who believe in god make such claims.

There's another term I use constantly. I have a couple of guys with whom I have marvellous discussions at the Ship of Fools site. They are dead-set geniuses with enormous publication lists, yet worship a dead Jew. One of them is so smart it hurts just reading his quals! I know a guy who goes to synagogue every Saturday, still professes a belief in God, and yet thought the book The God Delusion was "very good", after he read it. He disagrees that innocuous belief always contributes to fundamentalist violence. We know of Jewish leaders who actively take steps to remove violent thinking from their congregations.

I suggest that most thoughtful christians would see that as an un-christian attitude anyway. Yeah. Just like most Jews do not accept "Jews for Jesus" as real Jews, even though the "Jews for Jesus" insist on calling themselves "Jews".

But, I am not going to start getting to semantics and rigidly defining the qualifications of "Scotsmen", right now.

There was a movie? Of HHGTTG? Wow. Radio, scripts, book, tv series, sure. Movie......

NOT! It was put out in 2005, by Disney, and a bunch of incompetent directors and writers.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724

It was not, exactly, what Douglas Adams fans were hoping for, though. They cut off most of the better punch lines, for some lousy reason. :(

You know Marvin was originally only for one scene of the radio series, but was so popular Adams wrote him into the rest of it? Yes, I know. I happen to be a bit of a Douglas Adams historian, to a certain amateur degree.

I worship Zaphod Beeblebrox. (The Nothingth) I never liked politicians.

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. Well, it's not like I'm asking anyone to build a computer that can deduce God's phone number, or anything. ;)

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>
But, not all who believe in god make such claims.
<snip>

That would be Deists.

[Moochie]

For what it's worth:
I agree that beliefs, without evidence to back them up, are vacuous.
But, some people simply need that "vacuum" in their lives.

You may wish everyone was strong enough not to need such things, but that would be an unrealistic expectation, today.

Anyway, it ought to be JREF's position not to judge people, and only concern itself with what can be tested. That means folks with any semblence of belief in God should feel welcomed, (as long as they don't claim to have evidence of God, and then not actually have any when asked to present it).

If you want to start an athiests-only organization, go right ahead.

Oh, OK, then. Who else should we make allowances for? The list is seemingly endless.

Why not start a "Skeptics for Jesus" foundation?

M.

[Gurdur]

Sorry, but you're running the implications backwards here. Things are supernatural if they have not been shown to exist.

There's no reason to claim that they can not be shown to exist unless you don't think they're there at all.
This is also not true; both you and Azure are wrong here.

Ethics and aesthetics cannot be shown to "exist" in the overly simplistic way the word "exist" has been thrown around in this thread; yet ethics and aesthetics have very real and also quite, quite variable and individual effects on human behaviour. Neither ethics nor aesthetics are supernatural.

To repeat my point made just above (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2424199&postcount=220); there are questions science cannot answer, because science is not an all-encompassing philosophy; and that goes doubly for empiricism. Science and empriricism cannot tell you what is "good"; only you can define that for yourself. That is the whole nature of subjective perception and interpretation, and on non-empirical but still effectual concepts.

Twisting science (or empiricism) into some new religion as has been tried here on this thread only greatly devalues science and empiricism, and betrays a deep lack of understanding of science and of the limits of empiricism.

[Moochie]

Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence regarding an afterlife that IPU's don't have. Now, it's not particularly good evidence because it is exclusively of the personal testimonial type - i.e. I had a dream that my grandmother came and said good-bye to me. Then, the next day I found out she had passed away the previous night.

I'm not aware of any sane person who claims to have personal experience with an IPU. I know several who are willing to give testimony similar to the above. The evidence is certainly insufficient to claim proof of an afterlife, so if you don't want to accept that as sufficient evidence to believe in an afterlife, that's quite understandable. However, it is considerably more evidence than is available for the IPU and it is quite reasonable for someone to seriously consider the existance of an afterlife but not an IPU based on the available evidence.

By your definition, anything anyone claims to have experienced is "evidence."

You are kidding, aren't you?

M.

[Wowbagger]

Oh, OK, then. Who else should we make allowances for? The list is seemingly endless.

Why not start a "Skeptics for Jesus" foundation?

M.


Actually, I think I might have written something that might lead to confusion. I wish to clarify the specific portion of what I said, that I emphasized below:
Anyway, it ought to be JREF's position not to judge people, and only concern itself with what can be tested. That means folks with any semblence of belief in God should feel welcomed, (as long as they don't claim to have evidence of God, and then not actually have any when asked to present it).

When I said "any" I actually did not actually mean "ANY!". I did not mean to imply any-old sort of belief would be allowed in a Skeptic.

My use of the word "any" really meant "any that is deemed benign, as far as they are not harming people, and not making false claims of "fact".

Does that make it better?

Makes no difference if that belief resembles Jesus or a unicorn or a bucket of holy Legos. The only stuff that matters is that it is harmless and not interfering with facts.

If someone happens to like most of the supposed teachings of Jesus (the ones that are not harmful, etc.), and is willing to admit that he might not actually have been a son of God, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to start a "Skeptics for Jesus" group. Not that such a thing would attact very many Skeptics, of course.

I also wish to apologize for spelling "semblance" wrong.

[Wowbagger]

That would be Deists.For the most part, they would be.

But, (as crazy as it might sound), there might be those who would rather not call themselves "deists".

ETA: Not that I am anything like that, myself. Remember, I am a "Scientific Agnostic".

[Jekyll]

Ethics and aesthetics cannot be shown to "exist" in the overly simplistic way the word "exist" has been thrown around in this thread; yet ethics and aesthetics have very real and also quite, quite variable and individual effects on human behaviour. Neither ethics nor aesthetics are supernatural.


No, they are ideas, and they exist as ideas, at least as far as ideas can be said to exist.

Edit: that's ethics etc. in the philosophical sense, in the behavioural sense they certainly exist as repeated patterns of action/response.

[TheBoyPaj]

So throw out the entire criminal justice system everywhere! :rolleyes:

Was I talking about the criminal justice system? :rolleyes:

In law, unless you have a video of the crime taking place, you're asking the jury to make, at best, a guess about who is telling the truth. Personally, when making a judgment about the very nature of the universe, I think we should aim for a little more certainty before deciding.

[The Atheist]

Ok, let's summarise where we're at:

Theist/Deist/Anythingist members of JREF Forum, no problem - just as it should be.

Deist + Sceptic - very minimal opposition to use of the term.

Theist + Sceptic - for and against, appearing to be a majority against.

Shall we put it to the vote? As always, we all have entrenched positions and nobody's budging.

[The Atheist]

I never liked politicians.

Zaphod a politican? It was because he wasn't a politician that he became Galactic Emperor!

Actually, I was aware there had been a film, just that teams of wild horses couldn't have dragged me to it.

The most telling thing, I feel, is that if the project didn't happen while Adams was alive, I couldn't imagine it being "his" film when after he'd died and it clearly wasn't.

[Wowbagger]

Shall we put it to the vote? As always, we all have entrenched positions and nobody's budging. I doubt a vote will help budge anyone, either way it turns out. That would be Argumentum ad Populum.

Perhaps the vast bulk of the large majority of theists will never be called Skeptics. But, there might be a few somewhere whose theistic beliefs are "innocuous enough" that they can still function perfectly well as legitimate Skeptics.
I hope I don't have to repeat what "innocuous enough" means, anymore.

Zaphod a politican? It was because he wasn't a politician that he became Galactic Emperor!Sure, and Ronald Reagan was not a politician, either.

Actually, I wa sawre there had been a film, just that teams of wild horses couldn't have dragged me to it.

The most telling thing, I feel, is that if the project didn't happen while Adams was alive, I couldn't imagine it being "his" film when after he'd died and it clearly wasn't. There are ways of honoring Douglas Adams' vision even though he passed away. Disney did not do that. But, that does not mean it is utterly impossible.
Maybe in a few years some hard-core DNA fan will produce an HHGG movie that would have presumably lived up to such standards. We'll have to see...

[The Atheist]

I doubt a vote will help budge anyone, either way it turns out. That would be Argumentum ad Populum.

Of course, but it's not as though the subject is a crucial matter - just personal nomenclature. Although, maybe the death penalty could be reserved for transgressions.

Perhaps the vast bulk of the large majority of theists will never be called Skeptics. But, there might be a few somewhere whose theistic beliefs are "innocuous enough" that they can still function perfectly well as legitimate Skeptics.

Fair point - I bet it isn't a self-description for most christians.

Sure, and Ronald Reagan was not a politician, either.

No, but Reagan canvassed for votes, Zaphod didn't. I'm also damned sure that the real power was all vested in the cat.

There are ways of honoring Douglas Adams' vision even though he passed away. Disney did not do that. But, that does not mean it is utterly impossible.

Maybe - as long as it's made in England.

[Wowbagger]

No, but Reagan canvassed for votes, Zaphod didn't. I'm also damned sure that the real power was all vested in the cat.Alright, I was only teasing about Zaphod. (But, the similarities between the two are not just superficial.)

You may be right about the cat, but it would have to be a cat capable of trascending dimensional boundries, like the mice. I can't imagine a "conventional" cat enjoying such a depressing shack, for so long.

But, just to stay on topic: It doesn't matter who you believe has the real power, in the Universe! You can still be called a Skeptic, as long as you are... oh, I'm sick of repeating those two requirments...

[Skeptic Ginger]

How can a personal testimony be credible at all, when it is subject to sensory trickery, misremembering of events and mental abberations? It does not matter how respectable the witness is, they are still fallible and it does not make sense to build a case on such questionable testimony.Well we use it all the time in research but recognize the limitations. The key remains systematic data collection and adequate controls to rule out other variables.

You have to use perceived pain to measure the effects of pain medicine though sometimes range of motion and other physical parameters can be objectively assessed.

If I want to study something such as how children reacted to a vaccine, I have to interview the parents about what they recall from the day before but it might also be that a week has gone by before they are asked. This kind of study has limitations because much longer and you get a lot of selective memory interference.

I might want to know what people remember they were doing when they heard about the 911 event. Anyway, you get the point. Many studies in medicine are done asking patients to recall something from the past.

The other place anecdotal evidence is valuable in medicine is with the VAERS, vaccine adverse event reporting system. The data is first merely collected. If a possibly related event is serious and detected, it is more systematically investigated. If it is less serious, it will be systematically investigated if enough reports are received. Drug companies record reports of potential side effects on their products as well. If I have a patient who might have had a reaction, I notify the drug company. If I want to know if they have received similar reports, they will generally share any unpublished data with me. There have been a few in the news events where drug companies were not so forthcoming about drug problems. But that had been the exception and not the rule. Hopefully that is still the case.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So throw out the entire criminal justice system everywhere! :rolleyes:We shouldn't throw the system out entirely, but it could certainly use an overhaul. It's a shame it takes so long for the science of eye witness testimony to make its way into the court system. DNA is providing some good evidence about how unreliable eye witness testimony actually is.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or alternately the acceptance that one cannot evidence ones claim and that they lie within the perview of belief. This is where the issue comes down for me. Christians or any religious person who understands the limitations of the scientific method, and the fact that their beliefs are just that, and as long as their beliefs remain theological and don't cross into woo (Buddhists who think they can levitate, preachers who think they can faith heal or Young Earth Creationists for example) should be welcomed if they have issues with the many other topics Skeptics are concerned about like Alt-Med, UFOlogy, Psi, ESP, Cryptozoology, scams, MLMs, etc. etc.Would you view religious beliefs the same if the belief were about the volcano goddess Pe'le? Or would you think people were obviously believing in a false god? What about the rituals used in various religions. Do the Orthodox Jews rocking their heads back and forth at the Wailing Wall look sillier than the Catholics kissing the foot of a statue?

I'm wondering where you draw the lines and why?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have no qualms with either of the last two posts. ;)

But towards the discussion of skepticism and Christianity (or any number of other beliefs) there is another form of testimony and evidence. Personal experience.

So if through meditation and prayer a person feels a spiritual connection to the divine, believes they get a peek through the veils...they have a religious experience. That experience can and often is the strongest source of their personal belief in a divine essence.

If that person understands that there is no way for them to use that as a proof to others, that it is a subjective experience, and while it is full of meaning and import to them, it has no claim on our shared reality, then that person can well be a skeptic and a believer all in the same mind.

They can be both at the same time, but they are still using skepticism selectively. A skeptic would look for evidence about what the "experience" meant rather than draw a conclusion it was supernatural.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Getting back to the topic: I'm quite amused on this thread by several claims on this thread that regard science as some kind of new religion, and include the astonishing and very unscientific claims that science can answer all questions, including implicitly why rhubarb is fit for neither man nor beast (a question purely of aesthetics), and including explicitly that science can tell you what makes a "good partner" --- when in fact the actual definition of "good" is a wholly subjective and intersubjective concept that necessarily involves personal bias and taste, areas which science can only at the very best observe but not decide.

Science does not define the term "good". Helloooo?!Not without criteria to judge it by. But how does a person determine what is 'good'? They use unspoken criteria. Identify the criteria and the scientific process can make the same determination the human brain makes.

I'm not saying you should use the scientific process (most of the time) to determine morality, etc. But the idea our brain can make a judgment without criteria or that with criteria science cannot is fallacious. We overlook the fact we use unspoken criteria making such judgments.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm try again. For brevity, I'm only going to respond to what I feel is the key point I'm trying to make. Please feel free to redirection my attention to a key point you feel I've missed.
..We simply disagree here then. You are blurring conclusion with evidence. I cannot draw any conclusion I want to and claim the evidence supports it. It isn't weak evidence, it's no evidence.

I understand what you are saying, I simply don't believe you are correct.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Beliefs are always fair game for skeptics to question, investigate, etc. However, there is a difference between "exploring beliefs" and "disavowing someone as a skeptic, simply because they hold a rather innocuous form of belief".
(Again, innocuous defined as "not hurting anyone" and "not making false claims of 'facts'".)

Skeptics have every right to choose not to be friends with "believers" if they don't want to. But, to kick them out of the "club" completely, just for that, seems rather unfair.....I see, and I do agree with this as I said earlier when you clarified your initial post. I still see it as selective skepticism, though, no matter how benign the religious belief is.

There are some cost benefit analyses of recycling that show the benefit as well as there is evidence costs of recycling will go down as the technology is refined. So there is future benefit to calculate into the equation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...and not making false claims of "fact"....For belief in deities, this is an oxymoron.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, let's summarise where we're at:

Theist/Deist/Anythingist members of JREF Forum, no problem - just as it should be.

Deist + Sceptic - very minimal opposition to use of the term.

Theist + Sceptic - for and against, appearing to be a majority against.

Shall we put it to the vote? As always, we all have entrenched positions and nobody's budging.Add mine, thankyou: theist/deist + skeptic = selective skepticism, and, it is unlikely any of us are perfect skeptics, but some may be more perfect than others.

:duck:

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry you didn't "interpret my words differently" you deleted a key word in the sentence and then attacked a sentence that you made up from the remains. That is the classic definition of a straw man argument, not paranoia on my part. And the attack to my person... evidence that you are trying to score debate points instead of addressing the issues...rather than taking some high road you are suggesting you are taking.Then how about a simple restatement of the point instead of the incorrect assumption I purposefully did whatever it is you think I did. Misunderstanding a person's post can include not viewing every word in a sentence as a key word.

And my stated confusion, my skepticism as it were, about your motive should have been enough to demonstrate that I was not fond of counter attack and more than willing to entertain an honest mistake. But my doubt about that is waning. Why is the tone of your post so hostile? Can't you just discuss the issue without all the accusations of evil? I didn't attack anything, I'm having a discussion. I'm not competing to be correct, I'm sharing viewpoints. (See my sig.)

Well then, if we are going to forgo defining terms then lets go all the way and call the group a Christian organization shall we? That will solve and answer the whole thread in one go! :D

The whole thread is a philosophical argument. Can a Christian be a skeptic! My point is YES!

This is all off topic, (the topic being can one be a skeptic and Christian) but you might as well replace god with Space, Time, the singularity that expanded into space and time, or even a quantum probability wave. Yes you apparently don't have a problem with those "beliefs and philosophy and no physical presence."All of this goes to the same issue. If you find belief in gods credible, then you can accept a skeptic Christian. If, like me, you view gods as incredible, then your Christian is selectively skeptical.

The different versions of the definition of skeptic or arguments about the philosophical issues of empirical science don't change the fact gods are or are not credible. Singularity and quantum theory are based in trying to draw conclusions about evidence. The evidence in my opinion is overwhelming that belief in gods is based on the social-psychological evolution of humankind, and not based on any real human experience with gods.

If you start your philosophical discussion from the premise gods cannot be tested via the scientific process, then the conclusion which follows is that gods cannot be disproved, they are some nebulous personal spiritual thing. So being a skeptic and a Christian isn't a problem.

If you start your philosophical discussion from the premise the evidence is overwhelming that people invented beliefs in gods then the conclusion that follows is a Christian skeptic is selectively ignoring the evidence that the Bible is no different than a book of Greek myths.

[Gurdur]

Not without criteria to judge it by. But how does a person determine what is 'good'? They use unspoken criteria. Identify the criteria and the scientific process can make the same determination the human brain makes.
This is to laugh. Really, this is ridiculous. How many times does the fact of human variability of judgment have to be repeated?

"Good" differs from person to person. Deal with it. Replicate the process and all you have done is replicate a million different and clashing definitions of "good". It is a prescriptive factor, and thus not a factor you can derive from science.
I'm not saying you should use the scientific process (most of the time) to determine morality, etc.
Oh really. Science cannot determine what ethics should be. That is a simple fact. Whatever you are now trying to say, it's rapidly becoming incoherent.
But the idea our brain can make a judgment without criteria or that with criteria science cannot is fallacious. We overlook the fact we use unspoken criteria making such judgments.
Just what is this mess meant to actually mean?
"Unspoken" ? Hello? Ethics get spoken about all the time. Much of advanced internal cognition follows the same grammatical constructions as spoken language. Our brains, and we in intersubjective communciation with each other, make judgments all the time that science cannot make, e.g. ethics and aesthetics. Deal with it.


Yet again you show an ignorance of the difference between observation (description) and prescription. It's very simple logic; and while some are trying to define just who can be a "Sceptic" and who not, I would suggest here that anyone who refuses to grasp the difference between description and prescription, and the extremely simple logical exercise (testable too!) that shows a "should" cannot be derived from an "is", cannot class themselves as a "Sceptic". Whether they worship science as a new god or not.

[cgallaga]

They can be both at the same time, but they are still using skepticism selectively. A skeptic would look for evidence about what the "experience" meant rather than draw a conclusion it was supernatural.

Well, that begs the question doesn't it? They have looked for and at evidence, they have a book, a framework of belief (religion), and other believers who agree with their findings. Some of them are even scientists. That the evidence is unappealing to non believers is of no consequence to the believers own belief. And having a belief based in faith does not automatically equate to dogmatic unyielding of that belief in the presence of new evidence or information. As example, most faith based people will go to a doctor before they pray to their god, if the feel unwell. They do not deny the efficacy of modern medicine, they incorporate that into their belief system.

We in this community all know that the theories of science can potentially be falsified. But we for the most part do not go about trying to falsify them. We accept them unless new evidence to the contrary is brought to our attention. When it is we rearrange our prejudices and incorporate the new information, of course this becomes increasingly difficult for everyone, with the new sciences (cosmology, quanta and what not).

How many here have actually tried a double slit experiment, rather than take it on testimony that light and electrons behave in this rather strange way? Most don't, most accept the published results, and fit it into with their own belief structure. Are we less skeptical because we do so? To be a true scotsman...uh skeptic... must we perform every experiment by ourselves? Or do we place faith in the robustness of the method and the robustness of the scientists?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Would you view religious beliefs the same if the belief were about the volcano goddess Pe'le? Or would you think people were obviously believing in a false god? What about the rituals used in various religions. Do the Orthodox Jews rocking their heads back and forth at the Wailing Wall look sillier than the Catholics kissing the foot of a statue?

I'm wondering where you draw the lines and why?

The level of woo is subjective I guess. I consider practice and to be more important than symbolic ritual. Venerating a Mary statue is one thing, thinking it's going to cure your cancer is something else and being convinced it cured your cancer, not the six months of chemo is something else entirely.