What can't a Skeptic believe in

[ponderingturtle]

In the are the thread looking for non atheists I have gotten into a discussion of are there beliefs that someone can hold and no longer be considered a skeptic?

For this I realized that there are three rough categories of belief, but how a belief is expressed can change its category.

The first one is beliefs with evidence to support them, this is things such as Einsteins theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, chemistry and so on.

The second class of belief is those that by their nature have no evidence to support them. Any thing that can be put into the X in this statement "I believe in X, I have no evidence, I can not prove it, but I believe". X can be the existence of god, or even a biblical literalist creation where no claims about the evidence supporting it are made.

The third class of belief would be beliefs that have direct contradictory evidence, such as Silvia Browne being 87% accurate, or that the science proves a biblical literalist creation.

How the first category is clearly part of skepticism and the third is not, but what about the second? Can you be a skeptic and say believe "I believe in a 6 day creation 6000 years ago, but all the evidence against it was put there to mislead people" this is a belief that you can not disprove, because it does not expect any positive evidence for it and expect to be easy find evidence of an old earth.

[Wowbagger]

Skeptics have the right to believe what ever they want, just like everybody else.

The difference is that skeptics actually try to avoid claiming their beliefs are facts, when they are not. Non-skeptics are those who like to mix the two.

[Jimbo07]

Can you be a skeptic and say believe "I believe in a 6 day creation 6000 years ago, but all the evidence against it was put there to mislead people" this is a belief that you can not disprove, because it does not expect any positive evidence for it and expect to be easy find evidence of an old earth.

I suppose, in a sense. I guess a skeptic doesn't have to be practical. That is, it's impractical to assume that the entire universe is being toyed with by a deceiver, but if the deceiver was clever enough, how could we prove it?

It's the same as saying the world came into existence five minutes before I was born. I can't disprove it... it just doesn't seem practical to try.

[I less than three logic]

I suppose, in a sense. I guess a skeptic doesn't have to be practical. That is, it's impractical to assume that the entire universe is being toyed with by a deceiver, but if the deceiver was clever enough, how could we prove it?

It's the same as saying the world came into existence five minutes before I was born. I can't disprove it... it just doesn't seem practical to try.
Well, can't prove or disprove it to yourself at least. Probably wouldn't take too much to convince someone older than you that it didn't. ;)

[Jimbo07]

Well, can't prove or disprove it to yourself at least. Probably wouldn't take too much to convince someone older than you that it didn't. ;)

Unless I assume they don't actually exist. :D

I suppose they could have been created with memories intact, so that I feel that I am interacting with autonomous beings... anyway, you can see the complete impractical futility of going down this road.

[Horatius]

The second class of belief is those that by their nature have no evidence to support them. Any thing that can be put into the X in this statement "I believe in X, I have no evidence, I can not prove it, but I believe". X can be the existence of god, or even a biblical literalist creation where no claims about the evidence supporting it are made.





I split the difference on category 2. I think such beliefs can exist, and holding them does not necessarily render one a non-skeptic, but I think your example is a bad one.

Even if one does not present evidence in favour of creation, one must ignore the evidence against it in order to believe, and ignoring evidence isn't a very skeptical position.

A better example would be life in other solar systems. I believe such life almost certainly exists, on the basis of probability, but I have absolutely no evidence for that belief. However, there is also no evidence against it, so it's skepticism-neutral. Another key point is that it is possible that evidence to support my position may someday be available.

[tsg]

The second class of belief is those that by their nature have no evidence to support them. Any thing that can be put into the X in this statement "I believe in X, I have no evidence, I can not prove it, but I believe". X can be the existence of god, or even a biblical literalist creation where no claims about the evidence supporting it are made.

If there is no evidence to support it, one has to wonder where they got the idea of it being true in the first place. I don't consider this skeptical thought.

[tsg]

A better example would be life in other solar systems. I believe such life almost certainly exists, on the basis of probability, but I have absolutely no evidence for that belief. However, there is also no evidence against it, so it's skepticism-neutral. Another key point is that it is possible that evidence to support my position may someday be available.

The evidence is scant, but from what we know about life on this planet, specifically how evolution works, and the sheer number of places available for it to form, leads me to believe that life existing on other planets to be more probable than that life can only exist here. But I also acknowledge that it is a temporary belief based on the available evidence and subject to revision as the evidence comes in. I would also state the belief as "there is probably life on other planets" as opposed to "there is life" or "there isn't life". The end result of that belief, in my case, is merely the desire to go looking for it, to find out.

[JoeEllison]

Maybe everyone should spend less time believing in things, and much less time and energy taking any beliefs seriously?

[Dogdoctor]

There is no true skeptic, only people who label themselves one or are labeled by others as one. Skepticism is merely a tool to use in looking at data and not the end all answer to everything.

[ponderingturtle]

I split the difference on category 2. I think such beliefs can exist, and holding them does not necessarily render one a non-skeptic, but I think your example is a bad one.

Even if one does not present evidence in favour of creation, one must ignore the evidence against it in order to believe, and ignoring evidence isn't a very skeptical position.

But the evidence against it is not ignored, it was put there by Satan to steer people away from the true path. Or it was put there by god for reasons that mere mortals can not understand.


A better example would be life in other solar systems. I believe such life almost certainly exists, on the basis of probability, but I have absolutely no evidence for that belief. However, there is also no evidence against it, so it's skepticism-neutral. Another key point is that it is possible that evidence to support my position may someday be available.

So, when the rapture comes that will provide evidence for everyone. That is also evidence that could occur in the future.

These questioned stemmed from the ideas of theistic skeptics, and where do you draw the line. For example both the creationist idea above and deist ideas do not expect to find positive evidence for their beliefs, if for entirely different reasons. So how can you say that one belief is acceptable for a skeptic and the other is not? Is it just that there are more deists who share the general outlook with skeptics than creationists, so they get pushed out because they are very very rare?

[ponderingturtle]

If there is no evidence to support it, one has to wonder where they got the idea of it being true in the first place. I don't consider this skeptical thought.

But would you refuse to consider someone who held such a belief a skeptic? And if not would you consider anyone religious a skeptic?

I am confortable with saying that religious beliefs do not follow skeptical principles, and would think few would argue that.

[JoeEllison]

There is no true skeptic, only people who label themselves one or are labeled by others as one. Skepticism is merely a tool to use in looking at data and not the end all answer to everything.Kind of like the "no true Scotsman?"?

And, no, skepticism is not an answer... it is the beginning of inquiry and rational thinking, not an end result. That's why so many people who call themselves "skeptics" really aren't: they have simply rejected the accepted in favor of some fringe belief, but do so out of complete gullibility and I suppose a sense of rebelliousness.

[tsg]

But would you refuse to consider someone who held such a belief a skeptic? And if not would you consider anyone religious a skeptic?

I am confortable with saying that religious beliefs do not follow skeptical principles, and would think few would argue that.

I tend to avoid labeling people as "skeptics" or "not skeptics". I like to focus on the particular belief and the reasoning behind it. I do not consider religion, or any other belief for which there is no evidence, as one that is arrived at rationally or reasonably. If I were forced to give an answer, I would consider someone who comes to the conclusion that there is a god, without any real evidence, as someone who is less skeptical than someone who doesn't, at least in that area.

[ponderingturtle]

I tend to avoid labeling people as "skeptics" or "not skeptics". I like to focus on the particular belief and the reasoning behind it. I do not consider religion, or any other belief for which there is no evidence, as one that is arrived at rationally or reasonably. If I were forced to give an answer, I would consider someone who comes to the conclusion that there is a god, without any real evidence, as someone who is less skeptical than someone who doesn't, at least in that area.

But is there any sort of the second category beliefs that should be challanged? Or is it only when actions are based on unsupported beliefs that they should be challanged?

[homer]

I didn't understand the questions at all so I voted for them all . Actually I don't believe anything . I prefer to know things .

[tsg]

But is there any sort of the second category beliefs that should be challanged? Or is it only when actions are based on unsupported beliefs that they should be challanged?

All beliefs should be challenged. If they can't be supported, or there is evidence to the contrary, they should be abandoned.

[JoeEllison]

But is there any sort of the second category beliefs that should be challanged? Or is it only when actions are based on unsupported beliefs that they should be challanged?
I think there's a good reason for this thread's existence.... that "second category" is the sort of gray area where most fruitful discussion exists.

For me, those sort of beliefs can be challenged, but only should be challenged based on the individuals promoting those beliefs. I have a dear friend who believes in a few "woo" things. I would never bother to challenge her on those beliefs, because she states outright that there's no evidential basis for those beliefs. Since she already accepts the main thrust of any challenge, what would be the purpose?

On the other hand, there are people who accept, and even proudly announce, that there is no evidence, and even that there CAN BE no evidence, for their silly little beliefs, and yet they assert those beliefs as absolute fact. We MUST challenge those people, not only because of the foolishness of their beliefs, but because of the irrationality which underlies those beliefs.

[Fnord]

Skepticism is an attitude, not an identity. What a person is skeptical about is just as important as whether or not they are skeptical at all.

Being skeptical about everything makes you just another cranky caller to an AM radio talk show.

Being skeptical about nothing at all gives you a child-like wonder of everything around you.

Being skeptical of extraordinary claims makes you less gullible to underhanded sales tactics.

Being skeptical of politics does not necessarily make you an Anarchist or Rebel -- you can believe in the rightness of your country and still be skeptical of all the meaningless bureaucratic procedures and arbitrary laws that any particular political system imposes upon its citizens.

Being skeptical of religion does not necessarily make you either an Atheist or Agnostic -- you can believe in God and still be skeptical of all the meaningless rituals and arbitrary rules that any particular religion imposes upon its members.

[Horatius]

But the evidence against it is not ignored, it was put there by Satan to steer people away from the true path. Or it was put there by god for reasons that mere mortals can not understand.



But the "Satan/God did it" argument is merely the reason they ignore the evidence. Regardless of their reasons, they're still ignoring it. If you start with the assumption that any evidence you might have is faked, then there's really no point to science or skepticism at all. If you don't trust the evidence, you've got nothing else to work with.




So, when the rapture comes that will provide evidence for everyone. That is also evidence that could occur in the future.



Yes, but the Rapture =/= Creationism, or even a trickster god who fakes evidence. You could still believe in god, while believing in evolution. In this case, the god belief would be category 2.



These questioned stemmed from the ideas of theistic skeptics, and where do you draw the line. For example both the creationist idea above and deist ideas do not expect to find positive evidence for their beliefs, if for entirely different reasons. So how can you say that one belief is acceptable for a skeptic and the other is not? Is it just that there are more deists who share the general outlook with skeptics than creationists, so they get pushed out because they are very very rare?


But it is exactly the "entirely different reasons" that distinguishes them. A deist doesn't demand that we ignore the evidence we see around us. That makes all the difference!

[drkitten]

The third class of belief would be beliefs that have direct contradictory evidence, such as Silvia Browne being 87% accurate, or that the science proves a biblical literalist creation.

How the first category is clearly part of skepticism and the third is not, but what about the second?

I disagree that the third category is not part of skepticism. Much of scientific progress comes from people who hold a belief in the teeth of the then-current evidence, and then go out and find new evidence to support their belief. A simple example would be T.D. Lee and C.N. Yang, who shared the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics for figuring out that, no, parity was NOT conserved, despite all the evidence and theoretical argument to the contrary. The person who found Heliobacter pylorus and determined that it was the cause of ulcers (I have forgotten his name, alas) is another good example.

Scepticism is not about what you believe. It's about your approach to belief.

[Horatius]

The evidence is scant, ...

The end result of that belief, in my case, is merely the desire to go looking for it, to find out.



Yes, exactly. It's a belief based on probabilities, not direct evidence. It has no current evidence to support it, but there is also no evidence to contradict it - unlike the creationsim example.

[tsg]

I disagree that the third category is not part of skepticism. Much of scientific progress comes from people who hold a belief in the teeth of the then-current evidence, and then go out and find new evidence to support their belief. A simple example would be T.D. Lee and C.N. Yang, who shared the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics for figuring out that, no, parity was NOT conserved, despite all the evidence and theoretical argument to the contrary. The person who found Heliobacter pylorus and determined that it was the cause of ulcers (I have forgotten his name, alas) is another good example.

Scepticism is not about what you believe. It's about your approach to belief.

I don't think Heliobacter pylorus really qualifies as a third category belief. While the prevailing evidence did say ulcers were caused by stress, there wasn't any direct evidence to the contrary that they weren't caused by a virus. There was only a lack of evidence that they were. Believing that ulcers are not caused by the virus in the face of the evidence (once it was confirmed) would qualify as a third category belief.

[tsg]

Yes, exactly. It's a belief based on probabilities, not direct evidence. It has no current evidence to support it, but there is also no evidence to contradict it - unlike the creationsim example.

It's also not a belief on the order of "this is definitely true". It's a "best guess" and is usually recognized as such.

[Horatius]

It's also not a belief on the order of "this is definitely true". It's a "best guess" and is usually recognized as such.



Well, I'm not going to be burning anybody at the stake over it, if that's what you mean.






Well, okay, maybe just one or two......:)

[ponderingturtle]

But the "Satan/God did it" argument is merely the reason they ignore the evidence. Regardless of their reasons, they're still ignoring it. If you start with the assumption that any evidence you might have is faked, then there's really no point to science or skepticism at all. If you don't trust the evidence, you've got nothing else to work with.

So what? Others propose an all powerful being who can't actually do anything. How is that any more or less consistent an critical?




Yes, but the Rapture =/= Creationism, or even a trickster god who fakes evidence. You could still believe in god, while believing in evolution. In this case, the god belief would be category 2.

There are no beliefs in general that are in either category 2 or 3. Just specific claims made about such beliefs that put them into one or the other category. For example someone could believe in the effectiveness of prayer, but still accept that the studies of it are not conclusive.

So while an individuals beliefs might be in either of those categories, a general belief in X is not in either category. It depends on how the belief is expressed.


But it is exactly the "entirely different reasons" that distinguishes them. A deist doesn't demand that we ignore the evidence we see around us. That makes all the difference!

Neither does the supposed creationist, the contradictory evidence IS positive evidence.

The real difference is that there are more deists than creationists who generally accept and support science and critical thinking. So it is purely a social difference.

[ponderingturtle]

I disagree that the third category is not part of skepticism. Much of scientific progress comes from people who hold a belief in the teeth of the then-current evidence, and then go out and find new evidence to support their belief. A simple example would be T.D. Lee and C.N. Yang, who shared the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics for figuring out that, no, parity was NOT conserved, despite all the evidence and theoretical argument to the contrary. The person who found Heliobacter pylorus and determined that it was the cause of ulcers (I have forgotten his name, alas) is another good example.

Scepticism is not about what you believe. It's about your approach to belief.

So believing in things in spite of contradictory evidence is also a part of critical thinking? So young earth creationists have this is spades, and should be admired for that.

There is looking at an accepted view and questioning the strength of the evidence, but holding a belief in spite of evidence.

[Horatius]

Neither does the supposed creationist, the contradictory evidence IS positive evidence.



What "contradictory evidence"? I'm not sure I understand what yuo're getting at here. There's positive evidence for evolution. A creationist simply says, "Just ignore all of that! It's all fake!", when there is no evidence that it is fake. That's not positive evidence, it's a rejection of positive evidence.




The real difference is that there are more deists than creationists who generally accept and support science and critical thinking. So it is purely a social difference.



No, the real difference is deists aren't asking us to reject the evidence we have on hand. That's not just "social", it's a real and practical distinction between the two.

Bad analogy time. You're sitting in a room with two guys. Guy #1 believes you're a jerk. Guy #2 smacks you in the face, then insists that all the evidence he smacked you in the face is faked. Is it "purely a social difference" if I'd prefer to hang out with guy #1 instead of guy #2? Why or why not?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

We need a Skeptic Pope to decide what skeptics can't and can believe in, or be skeptical about. I nominate me. Anyone who supports me shall become a Skeptic Cardinal and the rest will be considered athiskeptics and unexrecommunicated!

[Dogdoctor]

Kind of like the "no true Scotsman?"?



A Scotsman is a native of Scotland. A skeptic is a person who uses skepticism at least some of the time unless someone wants to use a different definition. Skeptic doesn't define a person any more than a Scotsman defines a person and probably less so.

[tsg]

A Scotsman is a native of Scotland. A skeptic is a person who uses skepticism at least some of the time unless someone wants to use a different definition. Skeptic doesn't define a person any more than a Scotsman defines a person and probably less so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

[Dogdoctor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Scotsman has a very clear definition a native of Scotland. There is a true Scotsman, it is a native of Scotland. Skeptic does not have a definition that clearly say anything about a persons beliefs only that they question things and from there it's anything goes.

[tsg]

Scotsman has a very clear definition a native of Scotland. There is a true Scotsman, it is a native of Scotland. Skeptic does not have a definition that clearly say anything about a persons beliefs only that they question things and from there it's anything goes.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe everyone should spend less time believing in things, and much less time and energy taking any beliefs seriously?

That's what I was thinking. Being a skeptic for me, in part, means that beliefs are something more like body odor--it's best to admit you've got it, and then do what you can to minimize it and its effects.

After a lecture, Carl Sagan was pressed on the question of extraterrestrial intelligence. He said that there is no evidence for or against it, so we just don't know. (These aren't exact quotes--but it went more or less like this.)

Aw c'mon Carl, what is your personal belief?

I really don't have one. We have to wait until the evidence points one way or the other.

But what's your gut intuition?. . . .

[Dogdoctor]

Oh Pshaw,
Skeptics believe stuff. You need to believe stuff to live. Maybe Carl Sagan did not have a belief about extraterrestrials but he most likely did with other unproven stuff. I believe that it seems that there are likely numerous other planets similar to earth enough to support life and it would seem likely that there are other intelligent life forms but that any of them could be visiting us would seem highly unlikely due to the great distance. I can change this belief easily given data pertaining to it. In addition to beliefs of a scientific nature in society you have numerous other beliefs. For instance, you go to TAM and meet someone and they tell you their name is John. You then form a belief about that most likely just accepting that their name is John without checking 3 IDs or scanning fingerprints etc. You can change that belief anytime you get more data. Belief is nothing to avoid. It is only tightly held beliefs that should be avoided.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's a gray world. I happen to only believe in evidence based (category one) things but like everyone I'm certainly subject to error. Some skeptics have a blind spot or two in their construction of an evidence based world. That doesn't push them out of the classification of being a skeptic. If it did then what do you do about the errors we are all subject to?

Is it a blind spot or an error and who gets to decide? I'm sure a number of very skeptical people don't agree with my interpretation of the evidence based world. And I don't agree with theirs. I'm not sure how you resolve the 'brain filter' issue.

There was a discussion of the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention street riots/protest on the TV this morning (don't know, history channel or something I was channel surfing. See this page for the history of the events of the day. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/chicago7.html)) In an interview now with one of the police-persons present at the incident, his view was he was putting down a riot. In an interview with Tom Hayden, also present at the incident he saw it as peaceful protesters attacked when the "police riot" began. The officer said he was reacting to bottles being thrown and being struck by "rioters". Hayden saw it as police out of control.

They showed footage during the interviews. It was pretty clear there was a peaceful but getting more loud & tense protest and hundreds of cops poured into the crowd swinging billy clubs and kicking people. The cop said he felt the protesters wanted to provoke the police to get the response on public airwaves to prove the protesters point. Hayden saw no such thing.

And while you might be tempted to believe the truth then lies somewhere in between, we have this article from Skeptic, "The Fallacy of the Golden Mean." (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive122006.html)(12/13/2006) The current issue of Skeptic magazine has an article by Charles Lambdin on the supposed "Fallacy of the Golden Mean". Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be available online, so you'll have to find a paper copy if you want to read it.

According to the article, this is the fallacy of arguing that the truth lies somewhere between two extreme positions, as a sort of "mean", average, or compromise of the available views. Lambdin is in good company in identifying such a fallacy: D. H. Fischer called it the fallacy of "argument ad temperantiam" (translated: "argument to temperance, or moderation"), as does Madsen Pirie, and Robert Gula discusses it under the names "false mean" or the "fallacy of compromise"....

So where does that leave us? In the philosophy section of the skeptic's bookstore. Until we learn more about the brain's filtering system, we can't resolve the true interpretation of events colored with 'political point of view' paint. I imagine the same could be argued about beliefs of faith, though in my interpretation of the evidence that issue is resolved.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptics have the right to believe what ever they want, just like everybody else.

The difference is that skeptics actually try to avoid claiming their beliefs are facts, when they are not. Non-skeptics are those who like to mix the two.So skeptics who believe in gods are really all agnostics?

[Yoink]

This discussion seems to be suffering from some pretty hazy terminology. Those who say they "believe" in life on other planets surely don't mean that in the same way as someone who says they "believe" that Jesus is their personal savior. To "believe" in life on other planets (unless you're a woo) is to hold that this is a possibility worth exploring, perhaps to hold that your best personal guess would be that such life really does exist. It is not to hold that this must be the case in the face of all evidence which currently or in the future might be brought against that position.

I would say that anybody who "believes" something (i.e., holds something to be the case knowing that no evidence could ever be adduced to support the position, and in despite of any potential evidence against the position) is, by definition, not a skeptic--at least, with regard to that issue.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, can't prove or disprove it to yourself at least. Probably wouldn't take too much to convince someone older than you that it didn't. ;)The argument is memories are created along with the instantaneous creation of everything.

I say there is no evidence of such an occurrence so it is not skeptical to consider it. If you do consider it in your bag of possibilities, then you also need to keep open the possibility of other things for which there is no evidence, such as invisible pink unicorns in backyards. Maybe there should be a different way of putting it. There is always some chance of encountering evidence which hadn't previously been encountered.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This discussion seems to be suffering from some pretty hazy terminology. Those who say they "believe" in life on other planets surely don't mean that in the same way as someone who says they "believe" that Jesus is their personal savior. To "believe" in life on other planets (unless you're a woo) is to hold that this is a possibility worth exploring, perhaps to hold that your best personal guess would be that such life really does exist. It is not to hold that this must be the case in the face of all evidence which currently or in the future might be brought against that position.

I would say that anybody who "believes" something (i.e., holds something to be the case knowing that no evidence could ever be adduced to support the position, and in despite of any potential evidence against the position) is, by definition, not a skeptic--at least, with regard to that issue.There is evidence to hypothesize life on other planets, an infinite Universe and life on this planet.

I think you are confusing the volume and quality of evidence with faith beliefs which are merely beliefs we have encountered and chosen to adopt without evidence. There is a distinction between false evidence like claiming the Bible is actual evidence of gods and evidence which is insufficient to yet draw a conclusion. There may be some historical evidence in the initial writings which the Bible is based, but would you say the oldest texts of Greek Mythology are 'evidence' of gods? Whatever evidence is valid in ancient texts, there is no real evidence of gods, only of religious beliefs and maybe some historical events.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

A better example would be life in other solar systems. I believe such life almost certainly exists, on the basis of probability, but I have absolutely no evidence for that belief. ....As I said above, yes, you do have evidence of life beyond Earth. It may not be sufficient to draw a conclusion, but evidence exists. Life on Earth is evidence life exists in the Universe. We can't absolutely conclude probability makes life elsewhere a certainty. But taken together, I can draw a tentative evidence based conclusion.

That's different than drawing conclusions based on stories passed down from earlier generations. Written records can record actual events. But all written records are not evidence of events. The story of Adam and Eve talking to God is not evidence humans talked with gods. There is not sufficient evidence to support the story being about actual events. So to believe that story, you have to believe it without any evidence.

You can observe life and measure the size of the Universe. If you want to claim everything written or passed on over generations represents "evidence", then you have to include other traditional beliefs as well such as beliefs in Greek gods. You can't have it both ways, believing one is evidence and the other not. Not without corroborating evidence.

[JoeEllison]

That's what I was thinking. Being a skeptic for me, in part, means that beliefs are something more like body odor--it's best to admit you've got it, and then do what you can to minimize it and its effects.

After a lecture, Carl Sagan was pressed on the question of extraterrestrial intelligence. He said that there is no evidence for or against it, so we just don't know. (These aren't exact quotes--but it went more or less like this.)

Aw c'mon Carl, what is your personal belief?

I really don't have one. We have to wait until the evidence points one way or the other.

But what's your gut intuition?. . . .My persona "gut intuition" is full of crap... and I think that understanding and accepting that fact is the key to real skepticism. I might emotionally respond to all sorts of nonsense, but I can claim to be a skeptic because I can dismiss my own personal emotional reactions, and accept reality despite my personal failings.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
So, when the rapture comes that will provide evidence for everyone. That is also evidence that could occur in the future....Future evidence of invisible pink unicorns in backyards is just as probable. Merely selecting one future evidence encounter over another makes it a faith based decision.

.... So how can you say that one belief is acceptable for a skeptic and the other is not? Is it just that there are more deists who share the general outlook with skeptics than creationists, so they get pushed out because they are very very rare?Which is why I say faith based beliefs are only possible in a skeptic with a blindspot.

[Wowbagger]

So skeptics who believe in gods are really all agnostics?
One can believe in gods, if they wanted to, (and not be agnostic), while still being a skeptic, as long as they admit their beleif in god is not based on fact.

[osmosis]

That is, it's impractical to assume that the entire universe is being toyed with by a deceiver, but if the deceiver was clever enough, how could we prove it?

Ahh, ye olde Cartesian Demon.

I propose that we are but germs living on a meatball the FSM discarded eons ago as His Noody Appendage roamed the cosmos, apparently in search of a better quality brand of parmesan cheese.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's what I was thinking. Being a skeptic for me, in part, means that beliefs are something more like body odor--it's best to admit you've got it, and then do what you can to minimize it and its effects.

After a lecture, Carl Sagan was pressed on the question of extraterrestrial intelligence. He said that there is no evidence for or against it, so we just don't know. (These aren't exact quotes--but it went more or less like this.)

Aw c'mon Carl, what is your personal belief?

I really don't have one. We have to wait until the evidence points one way or the other.

But what's your gut intuition?. . . .I think this reflects Sagan's era of the belief life on Earth was 'special'. Such traditions interfere with objectivity evaluating the evidence. It's akin to it being politically incorrect to say you have a personal belief or gut reaction about life in the Universe.

I don't think Sagan or other scientists reluctant to admit they have a belief about which possibility is more likely, ETs or no ETs, would have used the same standard of tentative conclusions with other subjects for which we don't yet have absolute proof. Hypotheses may be subject to refuting or confirming, but people don't typically hypothesize with the position they have no personal belief about the likely outcome. Certainly they recognize the outcome could go either way. But I doubt you'd find very many situations where the researcher had not established at least some level of belief about which outcome was more likely.

I have no issue speculating that the evidence suggests life in other places in the Universe is likely. And I draw that conclusion based on the evidence we do have. I see Sagan in that interview and others here claiming we don't yet have evidence of life elsewhere in the Universe until we find life somewhere besides Earth as biased by the traditional belief "we are special". Were that clutter not interfering we'd have no trouble recognizing life on Earth is evidence of life in the Universe.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The difference is that skeptics actually try to avoid claiming their beliefs are facts, when they are not. Non-skeptics are those who like to mix the two.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
So skeptics who believe in gods are really all agnostics?

One can believe in gods, if they wanted to, (and not be agnostic), while still being a skeptic, as long as they admit their beleif in god is not based on fact.So you are saying what I am then, skeptics can have blind spots and still be skeptics. You are adding that they have to recognize they have a blindspot. I can go for that.

[Yoink]

There is evidence to hypothesize life on other planets, an infinite Universe and life on this planet.

I think you are confusing the volume and quality of evidence with faith beliefs which are merely beliefs we have encountered and chosen to adopt without evidence. There is a distinction between false evidence like claiming the Bible is actual evidence of gods and evidence which is insufficient to yet draw a conclusion. There may be some historical evidence in the initial writings which the Bible is based, but would you say the oldest texts of Greek Mythology are 'evidence' of gods? Whatever evidence is valid in ancient texts, there is no real evidence of gods, only of religious beliefs and maybe some historical events.

I agree with everything you say here. I've no idea what it is in my post you think you're responding to. I'm saying precisely that those who say they "believe" in life on other planets do not in fact "believe" this--they think that the preponderance of evidence makes it probable. They don't hold this as a credo, they hold it as a likelihood.

I'm also saying that religious belief is, in its nature, utterly unsupported by and uninterested in evidence--so why you think I would hold that ancient Greek theology was somehow "evidence" for the existence of Gods I can't imagine. Maybe you could enlighten me?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with everything you say here. I've no idea what it is in my post you think you're responding to. I'm saying precisely that those who say they "believe" in life on other planets do not in fact "believe" this--they think that the preponderance of evidence makes it probable. They don't hold this as a credo, they hold it as a likelihood.

I'm also saying that religious belief is, in its nature, utterly unsupported by and uninterested in evidence--so why you think I would hold that ancient Greek theology was somehow "evidence" for the existence of Gods I can't imagine. Maybe you could enlighten me?I was responding to this comment, "This discussion seems to be suffering from some pretty hazy terminology." I may have interpreted incorrectly how it reflected on the rest of your comments. So, let me withdraw this statement, "I think you are confusing" and replace it with, "Another way to look at this is..." Please accept my apologies. :)

[Dogdoctor]

I agree with everything you say here. I've no idea what it is in my post you think you're responding to. I'm saying precisely that those who say they "believe" in life on other planets do not in fact "believe" this--they think that the preponderance of evidence makes it probable. They don't hold this as a credo, they hold it as a likelihood.

I'm also saying that religious belief is, in its nature, utterly unsupported by and uninterested in evidence--so why you think I would hold that ancient Greek theology was somehow "evidence" for the existence of Gods I can't imagine. Maybe you could enlighten me?

You mean not supported by scientific evidence and uninterested in scientific evidence unless it swings in their favor.

[TTLer]

...are there beliefs that someone can hold and no longer be considered a skeptic?


Yes, P-tut - I think skepticism is an all or nothing prospect. I mean, what's more tragic than watching a so-called skeptic struggling to hold up a falling house of cards, while other skeptics stand around watching him/her, feeling silent pity???

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I don't know how to respond to the poll. I don't have enough information.

(Examines sig carefully).

[Jaundice Pheasant]

I believe skeptics are defined as anyone who needs absolute proof to believe something. I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in God. I believe the proof of him that I have experienced is great enough.

[kellyb]

I don't think it's so much a matter of what one believes, as it is how one deals with evidence that opposes that belief. It's the ability to accept new evidence that makes or breaks a skeptic. I think everyone finds it difficult to adjust strong opinions when confronted with new evidence. It's part of human nature to resist, and skeptics aren't immune. But skeptics..."good" skeptics, I guess, accept that doing so is a painful but necessary part of life.

I do think there are people who are generally skeptical, but are able for whatever reason to compartmentalise certain beliefs, shielding them from their skeptical "magnifying glass" that pours over the evidence for everything else.

As a general rule, in my own anecdotal personal experience, the ability to do this is a character trait, and people usually hold clusters of irrational beliefs. It's not usually "just god" or "just ghosts". It's almost as though holding irrational beliefs is an artform, or a strange kind of skill, and it is exercised in several areas. It's rare that I've met people who easily ignored evidence in one area with ease, and that tendency didn't pop up elsewhere, as well.
Because of that phenomenon, it's usually not an issue that you'll have to wonder if so-and-so who is a YEC is a "real skeptic", because they'll probably also believe a few (or more) other really bizarre things, as well.

[Wowbagger]

So you are saying what I am then, skeptics can have blind spots and still be skeptics. You are adding that they have to recognize they have a blindspot. I can go for that.
"Blindspot" is a good word. But, some might prefer "universal gap filling contingency", or something. I happen to be agnostic, though, so I can't say exactly what believers think.

It all boils down to the old addage: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." If one's subjective opinion includes the existence of a god or gods, and admits this is opinion, and not fact, how can we say they are completely and utterly wrong?

[autumn1971]

"Blindspot" is a good word. But, some might prefer "universal gap filling contingency", or something. I happen to be agnostic, though, so I can't say exactly what believers think.

It all boils down to the old addage: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." If one's subjective opinion includes the existence of a god or gods, and admits this is opinion, and not fact, how can we say they are completely and utterly wrong?

Well, any statement concerning said god's or gods's intervention in the universe would be concievably testable, and the skeptical thinker would have to abjure their opinion in light of the eventual facts. If no such statement is made or implied, then the opionion has no bearing on empirical reality.
In real life, of course, people have many little idiosyncratic beliefs which fall into the old "gaps". It is possible to be a superstitious skeptic, but only, as you said, insofar as the superstition is not mistaken for a real effect.

[ponderingturtle]

What "contradictory evidence"? I'm not sure I understand what yuo're getting at here. There's positive evidence for evolution. A creationist simply says, "Just ignore all of that! It's all fake!", when there is no evidence that it is fake. That's not positive evidence, it's a rejection of positive evidence.

Its existance in contradiction to the word of god is the evidence that it is fake.



No, the real difference is deists aren't asking us to reject the evidence we have on hand. That's not just "social", it's a real and practical distinction between the two.


It just seems like you find the deist belief astheticaly more acceptable than a creationist belief. So you give them more credit.

[ponderingturtle]

Future evidence of invisible pink unicorns in backyards is just as probable. Merely selecting one future evidence encounter over another makes it a faith based decision.

Which is why I say faith based beliefs are only possible in a skeptic with a blindspot.

And what is your point? Any belief outside of the first catagory is about faith. Can a skeptic have faith?

[ponderingturtle]

One can believe in gods, if they wanted to, (and not be agnostic), while still being a skeptic, as long as they admit their beleif in god is not based on fact.

And that is exactly what I am wondering about, if you admit that a belief is not based on evidence, can a skeptic believe then in anything?

[Moochie]

I tend to avoid labeling people as "skeptics" or "not skeptics". I like to focus on the particular belief and the reasoning behind it. I do not consider religion, or any other belief for which there is no evidence, as one that is arrived at rationally or reasonably. If I were forced to give an answer, I would consider someone who comes to the conclusion that there is a god, without any real evidence, as someone who is less skeptical than someone who doesn't, at least in that area.

Yes, we do like to pigeonhole, don't we? I don't believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Color me "unbeliever."

Looking around the various "skeptics'" forums, it soon becomes apparent that there are degrees of skepticism. One person's woo belief may be another's accepted wisdom.

M.

[my_wan]

I didn't answer the pole. I don't get what is meant by belief. I can choose to believe anything as a method of discovering ways of asking good questions. A good question is of course one that can in principle be answered. After selecting a belief and finding no good new questions to ask what does that belief mean? Don't know, I'm too busy selecting other beliefs in search of a good question.

[Wowbagger]

Well, any statement concerning said god's or gods's intervention in the universe would be concievably testable, and the skeptical thinker would have to abjure their opinion in light of the eventual facts. If no such statement is made or implied, then the opionion has no bearing on empirical reality. This is true, although one could try (perhaps not convincingly) to argue that an omnipotent god would have the power to intervene in the world, without detection, or something. But, perhaps I am dragging this too-obvious point too far. Your statements are quite valid.

In real life, of course, people have many little idiosyncratic beliefs which fall into the old "gaps". It is possible to be a superstitious skeptic, but only, as you said, insofar as the superstition is not mistaken for a real effect. True, as well. As P&T like to say, "everybody's got a gris-gris".

And that is exactly what I am wondering about, if you admit that a belief is not based on evidence, can a skeptic believe then in anything? Belief is what doth not require evidence.

I believe our sense of sentient conciousness ultimately rests on what goes on, down below the planck level, in various dimensions we can not directly perceive, and therefore won't fully understand it, until we are able to fully test such theories as Super String Theory or Quantum Gravity or other Unified Theory ideas, which may never happen.
I have no evidence to support this belief, and despite the fancy words, fully admit there is no real science in the above statement. And, I am willing to admit I was wrong, should evidence indicate otherwise.
Does that mean I have to turn in my Skeptic's badge now? :o

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

It all boils down to the old addage: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." If one's subjective opinion includes the existence of a god or gods, and admits this is opinion, and not fact, how can we say they are completely and utterly wrong?Um, because they are? ;)

[Skeptic Ginger]

And what is your point? Any belief outside of the first catagory is about faith. Can a skeptic have faith?That seems the be the crux of the matter. Personally, I find illogical [checks to see if ears are getting pointy].

If you understand evidence and the scientific process, then how does just chucking that belief system for this one little matter make sense? If you are comfortable concluding woo is woo, then what about this 'other' belief? Are prayers answered? Not according to any scientific studies. (We had a discussion about the research and even the recently reported meta-analysis which supposedly showed prayer had an effect was debunked.)

Does it make sense to believe one religious text and traditions because you happened to be born in one culture while rejecting all the other religions and texts as myths?

And if you just studied religion in the context of ancient cultures and history, would you conclude gods roamed the Earth in the past and no longer do? Or would you conclude the human species developed religious beliefs for socio-cultural reasons?

So if you want to be a skeptic and have "faith" in a god or gods, you have to set one whole swath of evidence aside. Can you be a skeptic but decide for whatever reason you are going to accept astrology? Homeopathy? Ra the Sun God?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I believe skeptics are defined as anyone who needs absolute proof to believe something. I consider myself a skeptic, but I believe in God. I believe the proof of him that I have experienced is great enough.Hi new person.:jrefwelcome

Lot's of skeptics have that one blind spot. You are not alone.

[George152]

And what is your point? Any belief outside of the first catagory is about faith. Can a skeptic have faith?

I would rather have evidence than a belief system

[The Atheist]

One can believe in gods, if they wanted to, (and not be agnostic), while still being a skeptic, as long as they admit their beleif in god is not based on fact.

Deja vu. Isn't there a thread in R & P asking if religion disqualifies scepticism?

Anyway.

Just to confirm your position, can you identify which of the following beliefs would disqualify one from being a sceptic:

homeopathy
ghosts
astrology
psychics
Loch Ness monster
telekinesis

Am I able to have a belief that one or more of those things are real, with no evidence whatsoever to support my belief and remain a sceptic? Please list those which qualify and whether having two, or some other, arbitrary combination will disqualify one from scepticism.

Cheers.

If unsupported belief in any of the list does disqualify one from the sceptic label, please explain the difference between religion and .... take a pick:

Astrology.

[The Atheist]

Yes, we do like to pigeonhole, don't we? I don't believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Color me "unbeliever."

Looking around the various "skeptics'" forums, it soon becomes apparent that there are degrees of skepticism. One person's woo belief may be another's accepted wisdom.

M.

In case you hadn't noticed, that bugs the hell out of me.

It's the same as an atheist declining belief in YHWH and worshipping some Wiccan god/s.

Utter bollocks - this is the cleanest line in sport:

Never holds irrational beliefs = sceptic

Occasionally irrational = not sceptic

Mind you, since all conversation seems to be about the "K" word, "skeptics", I won't get too concerned, I'll just amend the dictionary as follows:

Never holds irrational beliefs = sceptic

Occasionally holds irrational beliefs = skeptic

[athon]

There is no true skeptic, only people who label themselves one or are labeled by others as one. Skepticism is merely a tool to use in looking at data and not the end all answer to everything.

I'm not sure if somebody else has revisted this, but I agree with Dogdoctor 100%.

We act as if 'skeptic' is an all encompassing definition. In truth, there's no such thing. I might call myself a skeptic yet it is shorthand for declaring that I am an individual who always reserves doubt for the remote but real possibility that evidence might be presented which will change my mind, that I understand that belief requires a threshold of evidence and that evidence comes in different forms.

I can be a skeptic, in its traditional use, in conjunction with a topic, which means I reserve being convinced on grounds of the evidence not meeting my personal threshold. For instance, I might be a skeptic when it comes to ghosts being visitors from beyond the grave, but I mightn't be a skeptic when it comes to AGW. Yet I would apply skeptical tools to both of these in order to arrive at my conclusion.

Many individuals compartmentalise their critical tools, forming areas which are out of bounds due to social or personal needs. Religion is a perfect example. It's a very human thing and we all have periods in our lives, whether short term or long term, where we do this. We are just wired that way. To say somebody is or is not a skeptic, therefore, is a false dichotomy.

Can a skeptic believe in God? The question is itself flawed.

Athon

[six7s]

Never holds irrational beliefs = sceptic

Occasionally holds irrational beliefs = skeptic

Never is one hell of a long time...

For me:

sceptic: one who makes a concerted effort to refine perceptions, opinions and 'current understanding' by critical evaluation, a process that is iterated until the truth is evident or the cows come home

[my_wan]

I suggest that belief shouldn't enter into the situation at all. You divide it up like this;
1) In all probability
2) Highly likely
3) Most likely
4) Maybe
5) Not likely
6) Highly unlikely
7) In your dreams

Of course I know the human mind is so poor at logic that we get all bent on deciding if it is this or that, to believe or not believe.

[Moochie]

In case you hadn't noticed, that bugs the hell out of me.

It's the same as an atheist declining belief in YHWH and worshipping some Wiccan god/s.

Utter bollocks - this is the cleanest line in sport:

Never holds irrational beliefs = sceptic

Occasionally irrational = not sceptic

Mind you, since all conversation seems to be about the "K" word, "skeptics", I won't get too concerned, I'll just amend the dictionary as follows:

Never holds irrational beliefs = sceptic

Occasionally holds irrational beliefs = skeptic


One person's "sceptic" is another's "skeptic. :D

M.

[Moochie]

<snip>


Many individuals compartmentalise their critical tools, forming areas which are out of bounds due to social or personal needs. Religion is a perfect example.


<snip>


Not to mention politics...

M.

[ponderingturtle]

<snip>


Not to mention politics...

M.

Which is full of unsuported beliefs, because most political ideas are so often both true and false at the same time.

[blutoski]

I would rather have evidence than a belief system

You treat these as if they're mutually incompatible. All belief systems are based on evidence.

Skeptics, however, find the evidence weak, because of our belief system (Skepticism), which weighs evidence differently.

There is no shame in this.

[ponderingturtle]

You treat these as if they're mutually incompatible. All belief systems are based on evidence.


This is not true. Plenty of people here demonstrate that they have belief systems that have nothing incommon with evidence, see the CT group.

As a seperate note, what beliefs can skeptics act on? Can a skeptic act on unsupported beliefs?

[tsg]

This is not true. Plenty of people here demonstrate that they have belief systems that have nothing incommon with evidence, see the CT group.

Before we start the "what is evidence" semantic argument, some people use the word "evidence" to describe things offered as evidence regardless of whether or not it actually supports the claim.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Before we start the "what is evidence" semantic argument, some people use the word "evidence" to describe things offered as evidence regardless of whether or not it actually supports the claim.
You need a qualifier like 'valid' evidence or 'substantial' evidence or 'equivocal' evidence or you'll never end a semantic argument over what constitutes evidence. Then you still have the matter of interpreting the significance of the evidence and determining the strength of it in supporting a conclusion.

[six7s]

As a seperate note, what beliefs can skeptics act on?
Any, all and/or none

Surely sceptics can act on impulse, whimsy, hunches, gut feelings, etc - motivators that have no apparent basis in logic

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science


Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited , wheras imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution


Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

Was he a sceptic?

[tsg]

You need a qualifier like 'valid' evidence or 'substantial' evidence or 'equivocal' evidence or you'll never end a semantic argument over what constitutes evidence. Then you still have the matter of interpreting the significance of the evidence and determining the strength of it in supporting a conclusion.

If we're going to have the argument....

I don't consider that which is offered to support the claim as "evidence" unless it actually does support the claim (even if it's only weakly).

For instance: A person says bigfoot exists. He shows us some hair that is supposedly from bigfoot. It turns out the hair is actually from a goat. That hair is not evidence of the existence of bigfoot, it is evidence of the existence of a goat. If that is the extent of the support for his claim it is safe to say he has no evidence for his claim, or simply "no evidence" for short, regardless that he attempted to present some.

And just to pick a nit, I agree that qualifiers like "substantial", "weak", "strong", etc. would be helpful in discussions, but I am opposed to "valid" only because if it is invalid, it isn't evidence. In my opinion, and the way I use the word, if it doesn't support the claim at least weakly, it isn't evidence of what is being claimed.

That said, I do understand people use the term "evidence" to also mean that which is presented to support the claim, whether or not it actually does. What annoys me, however, is the practice of posting "it is evidence, it just doesn't support the claim" when it was clear from the context what the original person meant in the first place. At that point it is a pointless argument inspired by the mistaken opinion that words can only have one correct usage. My opinion: if the meaning was clear, don't quibble over the words used to present it.

For the record, I also feel the same way about "UFO". Yes, I know the acronym stands for Unidentified Flying Object and that it does not necessarily imply extraterrestrial origin, but some people use it as if it does and it's usually pretty easy to tell which they mean. Insisting it can only mean the former is being pointlessly pedantic.

[SynapticDancer]

Okay, here goes my first post on JREF...

What is a skeptic? A person who is skeptical of course. But where does one draw the line? Most ppl I know that consider themselves 'Skeptics' also claim to believe in the theory of evolution. Can you be considered a skeptic still if you are skeptical of the theory of evolution? Isn't that the very definition and nature of what it is to be skeptical?

As for the three categories of 'beliefs', some have posted that they do not believe, or have beliefs, that they have knowledge or know. But, then that begs the question how do you know? If you consider moving an idea from a belief to something that would be considered knowledge most people who consider themselves skeptics would probably say that during that progression some evidence was assembled and examined, which proved the belief (or hypothesis) into knowledge (or supported by evidence). But, wouldn't I still be a skeptic if I was skeptical of the evidence, or of the reasoning behind the conclusions drawn? And, if it is true that a skeptic does not believe, but knows, how is that any different from a confident christian who knows there is a god?

Can a skeptic believe that there is a god. I say yes, for the same reason that a skeptic can believe there is not. I say this because being skeptical would seemingly inherently mean that one thinks without the confines of dogma (as many on this thread describe skeptiscm as a method of enquiry and not a philosphy itself, it therefore goes against the defintion of dogma). That being the case, then wouldn't it be dogmatic of a skeptic to tell another that they must adhere to certain beliefs (i.e. the non-existence or probably non-existence of god). To say that belief in god does not make one a skeptic is presupposing that there is a doctrine of skeptical thought, and that's where the logic begins to eat itself.

And so ends my first JREF contribution.

[six7s]

Many happy returns :)