Split from: The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Beth]

It's like a shop that sells cake recipes and the ingredients isn't quite a cake shop. Sure, if you follow the instructions, you should get a cake. But if you tell somebody that it's a cake shop, they'll go there thinking they can buy a cake.

The JREF gives the recipe - skepticism. And the extrapolation is that if you use skepticism without prejudice, and honestly, you'll arrive at the same conclusion as everybody else. But for it to sell atheism in any form is to sell the conclusion, not the process.

I agree it would make for an interesting discussion. I'd be interested, yet feel that ultimatetly it would amount to just as I said - an ability to compartmentalise that part of their life away from effective critical thinking.

Athon

I know it's been a while since this was posted, but I just read it today.

I think that this idea that if you apply skepticism properly you'll arrive at atheism as the logical conclusion is as incorrect. Skepticism, as I understand it, isn't like a recipe that produces a particular product when applied to anything, much less religion. It's more like a cookbook with lots of recipes to choose from and the conclusion regarding religion isn't going to be the same for everybody because some people pick different recipes to use, others have different ingredients available.

To believe that everybody will come to the same conclusion about religion is like concluding that everyone will pick the same recipe and want to bake a chocolate cake rather than lemon squares or banana bread.

[Lonewulf]

Or that multiple scientists will come to the same conclusion on any one thing?

Skepticism is more like the scientific method than a recipe book.

[Beth]

Or that multiple scientists will come to the same conclusion on any one thing?

Skepticism is more like the scientific method than a recipe book.

Yes, skepticism is more like the scientific method; in fact some people would claim they are the same. And multiple scientists will NOT necessarily come to the same conclusion on any one thing - even when they base that conclusion on exactly the same evidence. Eventually, a consensus is usually arrived at but there is no guarantee that will always happen, much less any way to predict how quickly. If the areas we can explore with scientific methods and laboratory tests do not always yield identical conclusions for identical evidence, why do so many skeptics expect others to be athists based solely on using skeptical tools and the evidence available?

[Lonewulf]

Yes, skepticism is more like the scientific method; in fact some people would claim they are the same. And multiple scientists will NOT necessarily come to the same conclusion on any one thing - even when they base that conclusion on exactly the same evidence.
Sure. Some scientists don't agree on evolution or on gravity, after all. Well, okay, maybe not the latter.

Eventually, a consensus is usually arrived at but there is no guarantee that will always happen, much less any way to predict how quickly.
Which is honestly irrelevant, overall.

If someone is easily convinced that someone is psychic, then they are either not using skepticism as well as they could be, or they have access to convincing evidence that will either find it's way through skeptic circles or not. Either way, the claim "Psychics are all false" is true or it is not. When it becomes revealed that it is not, then there will naturally be debate. But sooner or later, it will become less a matter of "faith", and more a matter of looking at the evidence.

Well, that is, with people that actually use the skeptical process and don't just claim to.

If the areas we can explore with scientific methods and laboratory tests do not always yield identical conclusions for identical evidence, why do so many skeptics expect others to be athists based solely on using skeptical tools and the evidence available?
For me, it's the competing definitions of skepticism and faith. One does not declare a claim as true or probable without some sort of evidence. The other takes something as true or probable through force of belief alone.

[Beth]

Sure. Some scientists don't agree on evolution or on gravity, after all. Well, okay, maybe not the latter. Yes, even in areas as well studied and understood as evolution, there are scientists who look at the evidence we have and come to different conclusions. Gravity is still a mystery to those who want to understand why it works the way it does.

If someone is easily convinced that someone is psychic, then they are either not using skepticism as well as they could be, or they have access to convincing evidence that will either find it's way through skeptic circles or not. Either way, the claim "Psychics are all false" is true or it is not. When it becomes revealed that it is not, then there will naturally be debate. But sooner or later, it will become less a matter of "faith", and more a matter of looking at the evidence. Yes, as evidence accumlates, the conclusion tends to converge on a consensus, but not every scientist will agree with the consensus. That's my point. In cases where the evidence is incomplete, it's common for two or more competing theories to be developed to explain the evidence that exists.

For me, it's the competing definitions of skepticism and faith. One does not declare a claim as true or probable without some sort of evidence. The other takes something as true or probable through force of belief alone. If not everyone is going to look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion regarding an evidence-based theory like evolution, why would a skeptic believe that every skeptic who examines the evidence will conclude that atheism is correct? Given that this forem has people who have examined their faith skeptically and are NOT atheists, thus establishing that such a belief does not match reality, such an attitude seems to fit the definition of faith better than skepticism to me.

[Lonewulf]

If not everyone is going to look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion regarding an evidence-based theory like evolution, why would a skeptic believe that every skeptic who examines the evidence will conclude that atheism is correct?
It's a false dichotomy to claim that either a religious belief is worth pursuing, or that atheism is "correct".

I'd also say that it is my personal opinion that a scientist that thinks that creationism is true because a book said it is is a bad scientist, and a skeptic that kneels in church and believes in an invisible sky god because of the same book is a bad skeptic.

[Beth]

It's a false dichotomy to claim that either a religious belief is worth pursuing, or that atheism is "correct".

You're right. That would be a false dichotomy. That's not a claim I'm making. I'm saying that the claim Athon made: "the extrapolation is that if you use skepticism without prejudice, and honestly, you'll arrive at the same conclusion as everybody else" i.e. atheism, is incorrect. People do apply skepticism to their religious beliefs and do not necessarily arrive at atheism as their conclusion.

[Chaos]

You're right. That would be a false dichotomy. That's not a claim I'm making. I'm saying that the claim Athon made: "the extrapolation is that if you use skepticism without prejudice, and honestly, you'll arrive at the same conclusion as everybody else" i.e. atheism, is incorrect. People do apply skepticism to their religious beliefs and do not necessarily arrive at atheism as their conclusion.

That´s most likely because they apply skepticism to the limit of their ability to do so, and because they use only the information available to them. And since these limits, and the amount of available information, is different for each of us, people come to different conclusions.

So, IMHO, you´re right, but Athon is also right - if everybody did what he said, and everybody had the same information available, of course they´d come to the same conclusion. But then, show me just one person who is completely honest and without prejudice.

[Lonewulf]

Just because there's disagreement, doesn't make that disagreement justified, is essentially what I'm saying. Sure, I can ignore information on evolution to pursue some desire for spiritual reality, but that doesn't make me a good scientist or skeptic. However, I can be a good scientist or skeptic on other things; I can entirely disbelief psychics, spending the time and energy evaluating the evidence before coming to a conclusion and come to a conclusion that psychics are hokum. That doesn't mean that skeptic B that thinks that psychics are "for real" has just as reliable a conclusion from the same evidence; I'd say that one of the claims would have to be true (that psychics are real, or that they are not), and objectively verifying the evidence, I'd say that conclusions would have to lean towards the lack of "real" psychics... to say otherwise would require personal biase that falls outside of ideal skepticism. It also doesn't mean that the skeptic here becomes a "good" skeptic on religion when he bends his knee to a sky god, and is willing to live his life according to some account that was written in a book of dubious accord.

Overall, it is in my opinion that skepticism would naturally lead to a rejection of almost all beliefs as implausible or at the least, only merely possible, but never to the point of needing to live your life around those beliefs. It is the rejection of certain skeptical principles in a limited context that allows one to be a "skeptic"* and religious at the same time.

Disagree if you wish, of course.




*Just want to note here: I view skepticism as less of what you "are", and more of what you "practice". And I've seen some self-proclaimed skeptics act pretty unskeptical over certain subjects than others. I think that skepticism is a method, and is a method that can also be misapplied, or a philosophy that can be changed to the point of meaninglessness. Such as asking for "evidence" over any claim that you don't agree with, while not providing any for your own.

[Beth]

So, IMHO, you´re right, but Athon is also right - if everybody did what he said, and everybody had the same information available, of course they´d come to the same conclusion. But then, show me just one person who is completely honest and without prejudice.


Overall, it is in my opinion that skepticism would naturally lead to a rejection of almost all beliefs as implausible or at the least, only merely possible, but never to the point of needing to live your life around those beliefs. It is the rejection of certain skeptical principles in a limited context that allows one to be a "skeptic"* and religious at the same time.

Disagree if you wish, of course.


Thanks. Yes, I disagree. It seems to me that the question of the existance of god depends on the premise one starts with. If one starts with the premise that no god exists, the evidence is not sufficient to justify rejecting that premise. If one starts with the premise that god exists, the evidence is not sufficient to justify rejecting that premise. If one starts, as I do, without either premise, the evidence is not sufficient to accept either conclusion. I remain agnostic.

I have seen many people on this forum posit that the premise of no god existing is the only reasonable premise for a skeptic to hold, but I have yet to hear an argument that I found convincing on the necessity of holding that premise to begin with.

[Lonewulf]

Thanks. Yes, I disagree. It seems to me that the question of the existance of god depends on the premise one starts with. If one starts with the premise that no god exists, the evidence is not sufficient to justify rejecting that premise. If one starts with the premise that god exists, the evidence is not sufficient to justify rejecting that premise. If one starts, as I do, without either premise, the evidence is not sufficient to accept either conclusion. I remain agnostic.

Ah yes, the whole "Atheists vs. Agnostics" debacle. AKA, semantics, IMO. I love Dawkin's eloquent writing on Agnostics in Principle and Agnostics in Practice.

I have seen many people on this forum posit that the premise of no god existing is the only reasonable premise for a skeptic to hold, but I have yet to hear an argument that I found convincing on the necessity of holding that premise to begin with.
And you shall remain unconvinced. I'm not really interested in discussing the issue. If it's perfectly skeptical behavior, in your opinion, to declare that there exists a God without any evidence for it, then I doubt I can ever convince you otherwise.

And with that, I remove myself from this thread. Good day.

[Beth]

And you shall remain unconvinced. I'm not really interested in discussing the issue.

I'm sorry you're not interested in discussing the issue, but I understand your position. I discuss the things of interest to me and don't bother with those that don't.



If it's perfectly skeptical behavior, in your opinion, to declare that there exists a God without any evidence for it, then I doubt I can ever convince you otherwise.

And with that, I remove myself from this thread. Good day.

Not what I said, but if you've no interest in discussing it, I suppose there's no point in my elaborating on why your interpretation of what I said is incorrect. And a good day to you too sir.

[scotth]

I have seen many people on this forum posit that the premise of no god existing is the only reasonable premise for a skeptic to hold, but I have yet to hear an argument that I found convincing on the necessity of holding that premise to begin with.

You seem to be deliberately not seeing it, then.

The reasonable skeptical position on the existence of anything (including anyone's definition of god) is that you operate on the assumption that it does not exist unless there is some evidence to the contrary.

If you've heard the teapot in orbit around planet x argument, or the invisible pink unicorn argument, or the invisible dragon in the garage argument, then you have heard convincing arguments to hold that premise to begin with. The better question is "why did you not find those convincing?".

[Beth]

You seem to be deliberately not seeing it, then.

The reasonable skeptical position on the existence of anything (including anyone's definition of god) is that you operate on the assumption that it does not exist unless there is some evidence to the contrary.
There is plenty of subjective evidence that God exists. There is no verifiable objective evidence that God exists. Seems to me that it's perfectly reasonable for a skeptic to accept or reject subjective evidence as they deem reasonable when that is the best evidence available.
If you've heard the teapot in orbit around planet x argument, or the invisible pink unicorn argument, or the invisible dragon in the garage argument, then you have heard convincing arguments to hold that premise to begin with. The better question is "why did you not find those convincing?".
Because I do not find such analogies appropriate to the question of the existance of god. Whether talking about teapots around planet x or invisible pink unicorns, there is an assumption of some sort of material manifestation of the object in question somewhere in our universe, be it in someone's garage or planet x. Material manifestition is not a typical attribute of god.

The question of a god existing is, to me anyway, much more analogous to the question of whether numbers exist independent of human thought. Are numbers purely a human invention, a concept that will die if our species dies? Or are numbers conceptual entities that exist whether human beings are around to think of them or not?

[scotth]

You are unnecessarily confusing yourself, then.

Numbers in our minds are not charged with answering prayers or creating the universe. Unless you are arguing for a god that merely exists but doesn't and hasn't really done anything, these aren't equivilant positions at all.

[Beth]

You are unnecessarily confusing yourself, then.

Whether numbers exist independent of human thought or are created by humans is considered one of the great unanswered questions of philosophy. In fact, it's number 5 on Wikipedia's list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_philosophy#Philosophy_of_math ematics

Numbers in our minds are not charged with answering prayers or creating the universe. Unless you are arguing for a god that merely exists but doesn't and hasn't really done anything, these aren't equivilant positions at all.

I'm not arguing for the existance of god. I'm arguing that skeptical examination of one's religious beliefs does not inevitably lead to atheism.

[scotth]

Beth, I am not suggesting that your numbers conjecture is not interesting, I am suggesting it has absolutely ZERO relevance to considerations of god.

And, so far, you are only asserting (no argument yet) that examination of one's religious beliefs does not inevitably lead to atheism. But, I would love to argue the point with you, especially if we could get a moderated thread set up.

I would be arguing with the following definitions of atheism and god as a given:
god: I like the following standard model of god (http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god3.htm)pretty well.
atheism: Being confident that nothing like the standard model of god exists. (or any Abrahamic variant)


Sound fun?

[hammegk]

Worry more about the "non-standard model of god". Disprove that, and you might have something.

[Lonewulf]

Worry more about the "non-standard model of god". Disprove that, and you might have something.

The only "non-standard model of god" that is 100% unprovable or untestable is Deism.

Deism might as well be not true, the question of it is really useless one way or another. God creates the universe, and then BAM! He leaves it alone and has no measurable effect either way.

I'd say, both with a scientific and a skeptical mindset, that such a claim is really useless. If you accepted this model 100%, for that matter, then you probably wouldn't have any reason to go to church, to be on your knees, and to pray to God for your forgiveness. According to the Deistic model, God doesn't really seem to care about humans all that much.

[Collin Merenoff]

god: I like the following standard model of god (http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god3.htm)pretty well.

Articles 5 and 7 are not part of the "standard model". They only apply to Christianity. There are several religions for which I think the other articles would apply but not 5 and 7: Judaism, Unitarianism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, etc.

[scotth]

Articles 5 and 7 are not part of the "standard model". They only apply to Christianity. There are several religions for which I think the other articles would apply but not 5 and 7: Judaism, Unitarianism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, etc.

Really, that didn't escape me.

[Beth]

Beth, I am not suggesting that your numbers conjecture is not interesting, I am suggesting it has absolutely ZERO relevance to considerations of god.

And, so far, you are only asserting (no argument yet) that examination of one's religious beliefs does not inevitably lead to atheism. But, I would love to argue the point with you, especially if we could get a moderated thread set up.

I would be arguing with the following definitions of atheism and god as a given:
god: I like the following standard model of god (http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god3.htm)pretty well.
atheism: Being confident that nothing like the standard model of god exists. (or any Abrahamic variant)


Sound fun?

I have problems with the 'standard model of god' and with declaring that anyone who doesn't believe in the standard model is an atheist. Is a deist also an atheist? Is a Hindu also an atheist?

[scotth]

I have problems with the 'standard model of god' and with declaring that anyone who doesn't believe in the standard model is an atheist. Is a deist also an atheist? Is a Hindu also an atheist?

Please read the offer again. I am only saying that I won't be arguing against deism or hinduism etc, but only against belief in an Abrahamic god. I am not saying anything about those other positions at all, other than I won't be addressing them.

This is to put focus to the debate, only.

[athon]

I know it's been a while since this was posted, but I just read it today.

I think that this idea that if you apply skepticism properly you'll arrive at atheism as the logical conclusion is as incorrect. Skepticism, as I understand it, isn't like a recipe that produces a particular product when applied to anything, much less religion. It's more like a cookbook with lots of recipes to choose from and the conclusion regarding religion isn't going to be the same for everybody because some people pick different recipes to use, others have different ingredients available.

I can't claim my analogy to be perfect, but I should at least attempt to explain myself better.

Skepticism is essentially a philosophical approach towards adopting new knowledge. It says that knowledge is constructed from our personal observations, and since we're fallible when it comes to constructing our models on reality we a) adopt beliefs on a balance of evidence, and b) remain aware that beliefs can be changed with the evaluation of new evidence which can change that balance. Therefore in that regard it isn't a strict 'recipe', and I concede the analogy is weak.

However skepticism still retains something of a process by way of that philosophy. The process always involves critically evaluating evidence allegedly describing an observation, rather than simply adopting another's word for it or personal emotional reasoning. Religion is a model for describing certain observations, and such relies on needing evidence which can only be accounted for by that model. I find it difficult to see how somebody could evaluate such a model as religion, with mind of being truly critical, and retain it as having the weight of evidence.

To believe that everybody will come to the same conclusion about religion is like concluding that everyone will pick the same recipe and want to bake a chocolate cake rather than lemon squares or banana bread.

The only real such 'option' with skepticism is a threshold of how much - and what kind - of evidence it takes to give weight to a belief. By that regard, it's not black and white whether skeptical thinking in practice will always lead to a given result. People, being what they are, vary.

However, some large systems of belief, such as religion, aren't compatible. Bear in mind that atheism here is a lack of conviction in there being a deity. It is a null position, held in wait for appropriate evidence to shift that balance. A theist, in terms of skeptical philosophy, has claimed to have found sufficient evidence to reach their belief threshold in favour of accepting a theological cause for observations. I ask how this is possible when, considering that skepticism means being critical of determining what constitutes evidence, theism offers no evidence?

Athon

[athon]

Or that multiple scientists will come to the same conclusion on any one thing?

Skepticism is more like the scientific method than a recipe book.

Skepticism relates to the scientific method, but they are not synonymous. Skepticism as an epistemology says we must apply the scientific method and must be critical with what we call evidence.

Athon

[athon]

That´s most likely because they apply skepticism to the limit of their ability to do so, and because they use only the information available to them. And since these limits, and the amount of available information, is different for each of us, people come to different conclusions.

So, IMHO, you´re right, but Athon is also right - if everybody did what he said, and everybody had the same information available, of course they´d come to the same conclusion. But then, show me just one person who is completely honest and without prejudice.

Thanks Chaos. These are my thoughts exactly.

People, as individuals, have their own personal thresholds of determining quality or quantity of evidence needed to form a belief. Emotional reasoning and flawed logic are not things we can simply discard, and yet both influence our critical evaluations, making skepticism an ideal rather than a perfect practice.

Athon

[athon]

I have seen many people on this forum posit that the premise of no god existing is the only reasonable premise for a skeptic to hold, but I have yet to hear an argument that I found convincing on the necessity of holding that premise to begin with.

Because that is the skeptical epistemology - you always start from a null position, one where a conclusion does not yet exist. With evidence, a conclusion develops confidence. However until it is presented there is no 'leaning' one way or another. Therefore you start from an atheist position, where there is no deity.

Athon

[Beth]

Because that is the skeptical epistemology - you always start from a null position, one where a conclusion does not yet exist. With evidence, a conclusion develops confidence. However until it is presented there is no 'leaning' one way or another. Therefore you start from an atheist position, where there is no deity.

Athon

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your explanations, but the null position you are describing seems to me to be agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is the conclusion (you don't believe any god exists) and thus is, in fact, 'leaning' a particular direction.

If you interpret 'no deity' as a null hypothesis, which is a different critter than a null position, it is analogous to the most common scientific formulation of null hypothesis (no difference) but that null need not be the default, it simply the easiest way to set up a test, which is why is it so common.

Generally speaking, when formulating an hypothesis, the best method is set up the null hypothesis as the one you wish to reject because the null can be rejected at any specified level of confidence whereas when the null is not rejected, the probability of that being the correct decision (this is known as the power of the test) can actually be quite low and typically is. Thus, if you want to test the hypothesis that no deity exists, the null would need to be 'some deity exists' and you would then attempt to prove the null false. Simply failing to reject the null hypothesis of 'no deity' is not a convincing arguement to me that atheism is correct.

Ultimately, whatever the theory, empirical evidence trumps it. Given that I can find people actively participating in this forum who have, in fact, subjected their religious beliefs to skeptical examination and remain religious, I have to conclude that skepticism does not inevitably lead to atheism. Why do you ignore the counterexamples and continue to feel that skepticism leads to athiesm if religious beliefs are examined skeptically?

[Lonewulf]

Skepticism relates to the scientific method, but they are not synonymous. Skepticism as an epistemology says we must apply the scientific method and must be critical with what we call evidence.

Athon

I said that skepticism was "closer", not synonymous. The lecture was unnecessary.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your explanations, but the null position you are describing seems to me to be agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is the conclusion (you don't believe any god exists) and thus is, in fact, 'leaning' a particular direction.
Except for the huge number of atheists that would actually disagree with your definition, including Dawkins.

Almost all atheists consider most religious claims to be contradictory and implausible. Thus, they're just as fine with acting like no God exists. However, if you can provide actual evidence that a god exists, then atheists will look at it. No evidence has ever been presented.

Thus, Dawkin's position is perfectly skeptical.

Meanwhile, the churches that spring up preaching their own truths tend to fill up their fat wallets and get defended because HEY... they just might be right. ;)

[Beth]

Except for the huge number of atheists that would actually disagree with your definition, including Dawkins.

Almost all atheists consider most religious claims to be contradictory and implausible. Thus, they're just as fine with acting like no God exists. However, if you can provide actual evidence that a god exists, then atheists will look at it. No evidence has ever been presented.

Thus, Dawkin's position is perfectly skeptical.



I not saying that being atheist isn't skeptical. I'm saying that skeptism does not inevitably lead to atheism.

[scotth]

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your explanations, but the null position you are describing seems to me to be agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is the conclusion (you don't believe any god exists) and thus is, in fact, 'leaning' a particular direction.


Theism - to have a belief in a personal active god.
Atheism - to lack a belief in a personal active god.

Atheism literally means to lack belief. To lack belief before any evidence is presented is not leaning any direction. People seem to only have this problem in understanding specifically for the topic of existance/non-existance of god only.

[scotth]

I not saying that being atheist isn't skeptical. I'm saying that skeptism does not inevitably lead to atheism.

I would say that if it doesn't, somewhere along the chain of reasoning (that leads to theism) an unfounded assumption was granted, or unfounded conclusion drawn. One simply does not get to the belief that the supernatural exists, in the absences of all evidence, by skeptical/rational reasoning. period.

[Beth]

Theism - to have a belief in a personal active god.
Atheism - to lack a belief in a personal active god.

Not a definition I find useful. This definitions classifies agnostics, deists, Hindu's and other religious beliefs as atheists.

Atheism literally means to lack belief. To lack belief before any evidence is presented is not leaning any direction. People seem to only have this problem in understanding specifically for the topic of existance/non-existance of god only.

If you shave your head bald, you have now made bald your hairstyle. Atheism is a conclusion, not a neutral position.

I would say that if it doesn't, somewhere along the chain of reasoning (that leads to theism) an unfounded assumption was granted, or unfounded conclusion drawn. One simply does not get to the belief that the supernatural exists, in the absences of all evidence, by skeptical/rational reasoning. period.

So any skeptic that examines the evidence and doesn't arrive at atheism hasn't properly applied skeptical thought to the issue? This seems very like the no true scottsman fallacy. How do you know that all skeptics who examine their religious beliefs wind up atheist? Because if they do not conclude atheism after doing so, clearly they didn't apply skeptical/rational reasoning correctly? I don't think the issue is that clear cut.

[scotth]

Not a definition I find useful. This definitions classifies agnostics, deists, Hindu's and other religious beliefs as atheists.


If you shave your head bald, you have now made bald your hairstyle. Atheism is a conclusion, not a neutral position.



So any skeptic that examines the evidence and doesn't arrive at atheism hasn't properly applied skeptical thought to the issue? This seems very like the no true scottsman fallacy. How do you know that all skeptics who examine their religious beliefs wind up atheist? Because if they do not conclude atheism after doing so, clearly they didn't apply skeptical/rational reasoning correctly? I don't think the issue is that clear cut.

Sorry you don't like the definition, but I'm not the one who made it. Atheism (whether you like it or not) means "to lack a theist belief" and nothing more.

It might sound like the no true Scotsman fallacy to you, but it isn't.

If the following are true:
1) The skeptical position is to only believe in things for which there is evidence.
2) There is no evidence to support the theist hypothesis.

It is entirely reasonable (inescapable in fact) to conclude that atheism is the natural result of skeptical inquiry.

In every single instance that I have discussed with a 'skeptical believer', one of two things have been true:
There is special pleading somewhere in their case (not skeptical).
Their evaluation of evidence is poor such that they consider there to exist some positive evidence for the theist hypothesis when none really exists.
ETA: no matter how skeptical they are in other areas of their life, there is always a break in the method to allow for a theist belief.

I will go one further. If YOU think there is a way to get to a theist belief consistent with skeptical/rational reasoning, you must have evidence of this method (if you are thinking skeptically). Please present it to us. If you believe skepticism and theism are compatible, one of my two opening premises must be false. Is it rational/skeptical to believe in something for which there exists no evidence, or.... do you think there really is some valid evidence?

This is not a complicated argument. It really must be one or the other.

[Beth]

Sorry you don't like the definition, but I'm not the one who made it. Atheism (whether you like it or not) means "to lack a theist belief" and nothing more.

It might sound like the no true Scotsman fallacy to you, but it isn't.

If the following are true:
1) The skeptical position is to only believe in things for which there is evidence.
2) There is no evidence to support the theist hypothesis.

It is entirely reasonable (inescapable in fact) to conclude that atheism is the natural result of skeptical inquiry.

In every single instance that I have discussed with a 'skeptical believer', one of two things have been true:
There is special pleading somewhere in their case (not skeptical).
Their evaluation of evidence is poor such that they consider there to exist some positive evidence for the theist hypothesis when none really exists.
ETA: no matter how skeptical they are in other areas of their life, there is always a break in the method to allow for a theist belief.

I will go one further. If YOU think there is a way to get to a theist belief consistent with skeptical/rational reasoning, you must have evidence of this method (if you are thinking skeptically). Please present it to us. If you believe skepticism and theism are compatible, one of my two opening premises must be false. Is it rational/skeptical to believe in something for which there exists no evidence, or.... do you think there really is some valid evidence?

This is not a complicated argument. It really must be one or the other.

Premise number 2 is false. There is no objective verifiable evidence for god. There is plenty of subjective individual evidence.

[scotth]

Premise number 2 is false. There is no objective verifiable evidence for god. There is plenty of subjective individual evidence.

Well, there ya go.... failed already.

Accepting subjective individual experience (especially when it contradicts mountains of objective evidence) is not being a skeptic. period.

ETA: One of the single most important things one learns when learning the scientific method (which is all sketicism is) is how utterly horrible humans are as reliable witnesses.

[Upchurch]

The only "non-standard model of god" that is 100% unprovable or untestable is Deism.
Last week, I was introduced to naturalistic "non-standard model of god". This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Story) is the closest Wiki article on it. It's a sort of mythic narrative on scientific theory. To the best of my limited knowledge on it, they don't add any claims of fact to genuine theory.

[cnorman18]

Just for the record, Jews stop signing off on the "Standard Model" after #3. Judaism does not believe in a soul that is separate from the body, nor in an afterlife. The latter is a belief option for Jews, but it is not an integral part if the religion.

I left the religion of my birth, the Methodist version of Christianity, because to me it did not make sense. Judaism does.

Insisting that one's faith be self-consistent and understandable, and in that sense "rational," is not, I am sure, that which is meant by "skepticism" here. But it seems related, and it works for me.

[scotth]

Just for the record, Jews stop signing off on the "Standard Model" after #3. Judaism does not believe in a soul that is separate from the body, nor in an afterlife. The latter is a belief option for Jews, but it is not an integral part if the religion.

I left the religion of my birth, the Methodist version of Christianity, because to me it did not make sense. Judaism does.

Insisting that one's faith be self-consistent and understandable, and in that sense "rational," is not, I am sure, that which is meant by "skepticism" here. But it seems related, and it works for me.

I have heard Jews say that they have no belief in hell, but never that they didn't believe in life after death (necessitating an everlasting part of themselves, aka the soul).

[Bri]

That´s most likely because they apply skepticism to the limit of their ability to do so, and because they use only the information available to them. And since these limits, and the amount of available information, is different for each of us, people come to different conclusions.

So, IMHO, you´re right, but Athon is also right - if everybody did what he said, and everybody had the same information available, of course they´d come to the same conclusion. But then, show me just one person who is completely honest and without prejudice.

I'm not sure I agree. In this case, there is simply no definitive evidence available one way or the other (or if there is, few if any people are privy to the evidence). If there is a lack of evidence, we might still hold a belief one way or the other (as opposed to having no belief whatsoever). We often call such beliefs "opinions." There is no "correct" opinion, even given the same evidence as long as the evidence isn't definitive. One person might believe that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system, but another can reasonably have the opposite opinion even if privy to the same evidence (or lack thereof).

There also seems to be a confusion between agnosticism and atheism, which aren't mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is simply the acknowledgment that we don't know for certain, so either an atheist or a theist can also be an agnostic on the matter of the existence of gods. If there is no definitive evidence (as with the existence of gods) the only decidedly wrong answers would be theistic or atheistic gnosticism.

-Bri

[Beth]

Well, there ya go.... failed already.

Accepting subjective individual experience (especially when it contradicts mountains of objective evidence) is not being a skeptic. period.I'll simply have to disagree to you on that. Subjective individual experience is evidence is valid, it's not verifiable and repeatable, thus it isn't scientific. If I say I talked to my daughter on the phone, you may have cause to doubt that statement but I can certainly accept it as valid.

ETA: One of the single most important things one learns when learning the scientific method (which is all sketicism is) is how utterly horrible humans are as reliable witnesses. Yes, humans are certainly unreliable as witnesses. On the other hand, we are also the best witnesses available. All scientific progress is made by some human first observing something and then formulating hypotheses about it and running tests.

[scotth]

I'll simply have to disagree to you on that. Subjective individual experience is evidence is valid, it's not verifiable and repeatable, thus it isn't scientific.

In this case, it really is true, you are not a 'true' skeptic. This is not a fallacy, don't even bother trying to twist it that way.

The skeptical position is excruciatingly well defined on this particular point. Anecdotal evidence is not worth considering on such important matters.

ETA: Let me be perfectly clear, if someone who claims to be a christian says that he believes that Jesus never existed, it is NOT a 'true Scotsman' fallacy to point out in this case the he really is not a 'true' christian.

[Bri]

Accepting subjective individual experience (especially when it contradicts mountains of objective evidence) is not being a skeptic. period.

Can you please cite sources of these mountains of objective evidence for or against the existence of gods? Thanks.

-Bri

[Beth]

In this case, it really is true, you are not a 'true' skeptic. This is not a fallacy, don't even bother trying to twist it that way.

The skeptical position is excruciatingly well defined on this particular point. Anecdotal evidence is not worth considering on such important matters.

ETA: Let me be perfectly clear, if someone who claims to be a christian says that he believes that Jesus never existed, it is NOT a 'true Scotsman' fallacy to point out in this case the he really is not a 'true' christian.

So skeptics are not allowed to consider their own experiences as valid evidence? Well your right then, I don't qualify as a skeptic. I don't think anybody does by that critieria. IMO, that makes your position that skeptics must be atheists equivalent to the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. How does one falsify your belief that all true skeptics are atheists if counterexamples don't count because they aren't true skeptics.

By the way, there are indeed Christians who don't believe that jesus ever existed but feel that he was a mythological figure only. That does not mean they aren't Christian, only that they have a different set of beliefs regarding Jesus and Christianity. Some people won't count them as Christian, true, but some folks don't count Catholics as Christian either.

[scotth]

Can you please cite sources of these mountains of objective evidence for or against the existence of gods? Thanks.

-Bri

I can't point to any objective evidence for..... Can you? That should be the end of the discussion right there.

The ONLY reason to believe in any of the big three is that you take seriously the proposition that god revealed himself to humanity through one of their holy books (these are all 'revealed' religions after all). Do I really need to start listing all the objective ways in which the universe as described by any of those books does not match what we find in reality? That Old Testament (besides being THE book for the Jews is the foundation for Islam and Christianity) utterly lacks historical truth. When almost everything that can be compared with reality is found to be wanting, why would anyone think it would be any more accurate in the areas that are not open to verification?

[scotth]

So skeptics are not allowed to consider their own experiences as valid evidence? Well your right then, I don't qualify as a skeptic. I don't think anybody does by that critieria. IMO, that makes your position that skeptics must be atheists equivalent to the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. How does one falsify your belief that all true skeptics are atheists if counterexamples don't count because they aren't true skeptics.

By the way, there are indeed Christians who don't believe that jesus ever existed but feel that he was a mythological figure only. That does not mean they aren't Christian, only that they have a different set of beliefs regarding Jesus and Christianity. Some people won't count them as Christian, true, but some folks don't count Catholics as Christian either.

I am glad we agree on something (you are not a skeptic). But your logic sucks going forward. You are trying to make my argument circular when it isn't. I don't start with the assumption that non atheists aren't skeptics. I actually evaluate the arguements that they used to draw the theistic conclusion, and invariably they do not follow the tennets of skepticism. That is why they not skeptics. That is why you are not a skeptic. It is not beause of the conclusion, it is their break from skepticism that allows them to draw the conclusion. You are reversing cause and effect.

I will let you argue with 'christianity' that people who don't beleive in a historical Jesus somehow still qualify as true christians. While there are many variations on the definition of christianity, the existance of Jesus is not one of those things up for debate.

[Bri]

I can't point to any objective evidence for..... Can you? That should be the end of the discussion right there.

So then we must be agnostic about the existence of gods? In other words, a skeptic cannot believe that gods exist, nor can a skeptic believe that there are no gods?

-Bri

[scotth]

So then we must be agnostic about the existence of gods? In other words, a skeptic cannot believe that gods exist, nor can a skeptic believe that there are no gods?

-Bri

No.

On the issue of the theistic definition of god (which I've been very specific that that is what I am addressing), we can be confident that there is no such thing.

The theistic definition of god has real consequences in the real world. They are not true/observed. Therefore theism is not true.

Theism doesn't posit an untestable god. Whiny claims to the contrary, the hypothesis that the god of the bible exists and dictated/inspired the bible are imminently testable.

On deism, the worst that could be said about it is that it is an unnecessary complication. I am not arguing for a-deism. I am arguing for a-theism.

[cnorman18]

I have heard Jews say that they have no belief in hell, but never that they didn't believe in life after death (necessitating an everlasting part of themselves, aka the soul).

Most Jews probably do believe in an afterlife; but it is not mentioned in the Torah, and few Jews (at least those who are familiar with their own traditions; many are not) would say that it's guaranteed. Even those who do so believe are most likely speaking of a return to life at the end of time, as opposed to a separate soul entering Heaven at the time of death.

[cnorman18]

While there are many variations on the definition of christianity, the existance of Jesus is not one of those things up for debate.

Sorry, you're just wrong on that score. I am no longer a Christian, but I did study at a well-known Methodist seminary; and the consensus of the professors and students there, all inarguably Christians, was that the "historical Jesus" is irrelevant to Christianity. The object of Christian belief is the "Christ of faith." The two are not the same, and the fact that most laymen believe otherwise is not germane to a discussion of the formal tenets of the faith as understood by its scholars.

Of course, this applies only to distinctly liberal, modernist (and academic-minded) Christians; your average Baptist or Pentecostal would be outraged.

[Bri]

On the issue of the theistic definition of god (which I've been very specific that that is what I am addressing), we can be confident that there is no such thing.

A theistic definition of God seems to be redundant. I assume you're referring to the "standard definition" that you posted a reference to earlier in the thread.

Can you please cite sources of these mountains of objective evidence against the existence of such a God?

The theistic definition of god has real consequences in the real world. They are not true/observed. Therefore theism is not true.

Even if such a definition has real consequences in the real world, why would you assume that those consequences could be measured? Don't you think an all-powerful God could ensure that we wouldn't know for certain of his existence?

Theism doesn't posit an untestable god.

Nor does it posit a testable God. If you want to prove that such a God cannot exist, it would be up to you to provide evidence that such a God must be testable, and that tests have conclusively proven it false. Can you provide the mountains of evidence that you claim exists?

Whiny claims to the contrary, the hypothesis that the god of the bible exists and dictated/inspired the bible are imminently testable.

How would you propose such a test? If such a test has already been conducted, can you please post a reference to the conclusive results?

BTW, deism is a form of theism, but nonetheless I agree to confine the discussion to a God who can and does interact with the world.

-Bri

[scotth]

Sorry, you're just wrong on that score. I am no longer a Christian, but I did study at a well-known Methodist seminary; and the consensus of the professors and students there, all inarguably Christians, was that the "historical Jesus" is irrelevant to Christianity. The object of Christian belief is the "Christ of faith." The two are not the same, and the fact that most laymen believe otherwise is not germane to a discussion of the formal tenets of the faith as understood by its scholars.

Of course, this applies only to distinctly liberal, modernist (and academic-minded) Christians; your average Baptist or Pentecostal would be outraged.

A tiny liberal/academic minority that disregards a key tennant of christianity does not get to redefine what is or isn't christianity for the rest of the world. Indeed Jesuits and other scholarly believers disregard large fractions of the bible. They do so because those bits are obviously wrong/myth/folklore. Biblically, they are completely unjustified in doing so. Logicially, I can't argue with them at all.

[scotth]

A theistic definition of God seems to be redundant. I assume you're referring to the "standard definition" that you posted a reference to earlier in the thread.

Can you please cite sources of these mountains of objective evidence against the existence of such a God?



Even if such a definition has real consequences in the real world, why would you assume that those consequences could be measured? Don't you think an all-powerful God could ensure that we wouldn't know for certain of his existence?



Nor does it posit a testable God. If you want to prove that such a God cannot exist, it would be up to you to provide evidence that such a God must be testable, and that tests have conclusively proven it false. Can you provide the mountains of evidence that you claim exists?



How would you propose such a test? If such a test has already been conducted, can you please post a reference to the conclusive results?

BTW, deism is a form of theism, but nonetheless I agree to confine the discussion to a God who can and does interact with the world.

-Bri

By definition, the evidence for a theistic god is the holy book proclaiming him. Theisms are 'revealed' in the parlance.

So, what does the bible say that just isn't true?
1) Our entire understanding of cosmology, geology, and evolution are false.
2) That there was a global flood.
(granted many liberal believers ignore these two, but not for good theological reasons)
3) That were were large number of Jewish slaves in egypt. (as soon as you realize this isn't true, the whole story of leading the jews from bondage is just silly)
4) None of the great biblical kingdoms existed (in anything like the manner described in the bible)
5) That prayer has any effect whatsover
These and more are assertions made by the bible for which it is possible to look for confirming evidence. It doesn't exist.

The counter evidence for these would span pages and pages. Before I start parading it all out, I'd like to know which of these (if any) you disagree with.

ETA: Deism is a belief in a NON INTERACTING god. Theism is a belief in a PERSONAL INTERACTING god. Deism is not another form of theism.

[Bri]

By definition, the evidence for a theistic god is the holy book proclaiming him. Theisms are 'revealed' in the parlance.

I already admitted that there was no conclusive evidence of a theistic god. My question was whether you have conclusive evidence that there are no theistic gods.

Let's suppose that there is a holy book proclaiming a god, but doesn't contain anything that can be proven false. Now what?

The counter evidence for these would span pages and pages. Before I start parading it all out, I'd like to know which of these (if any) you disagree with.

No need, although it is far from certain that any of your proclamations are true. As an example, can you prove that prayer has no affect whatsoever? Is it possible that God doesn't want you to know that he exists and therefore doesn't answer prayers while they are being studied?

I imagine that given God's omnipotence, it would be impossible for you to prove that any of your proclamations are necessarily true. God could have purposely altered evidence of any of the events in the Bible you referred to if he wanted to.

At any rate, you seem to be referring to a specific holy book here (I assume the Bible). My question was whether or not you can provide evidence that no theistic gods exist.

ETA: Deism is a belief in a NON INTERACTING god. Theism is a belief in a PERSONAL INTERACTING god. Deism is not another form of theism.

I don't want to argue definitions. There is more than one definition of theism, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism):

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

There is also a narrower sense in which theism refers to the belief that one or more divinities are immanent in the world, yet transcend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.[1]

By the first definition, at least, deism would be a subset of theism. At any rate, I agree to use the second definition. Although I don't see anything about a holy book there.

So, do you have mountains of conclusive evidence that there are no theistic gods?

-Bri

[cnorman18]

A tiny liberal/academic minority that disregards a key tennant of christianity does not get to redefine what is or isn't christianity for the rest of the world. Indeed Jesuits and other scholarly believers disregard large fractions of the bible. They do so because those bits are obviously wrong/myth/folklore. Biblically, they are completely unjustified in doing so. Logicially, I can't argue with them at all.

Sorry, but theology is a well-respected and well-established field of academic study. You don't get to ignore the opinions of generations of scholars and redefine a religion as you think it ought to be understood, citing opinions that you think are held by most laymen (modern liberal Christians are more knowledgable than you might suspect). Do that with physics, and quantum mechanics doesn't exist.

Further, who are you to pontificate on what is and is not "Biblically justified" and overrule the opinions of established scholars? Can you show me that you read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek? Do you have a degree in Old or New Testament theology or textual criticism? Have you read everything written by Rudolf Bultmann, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Schubert Ogden, and Teilhard de Chardin (and those are just for beginners)? Or have you just read an English translation of the Bible without consulting so much as a popular layman's commentary and now consider yourself an expert?

It's easy to win arguments when you deem yourself qualified to speak for both sides, but that's not debate; that's shadowboxing.

You said that belief in the historical Jesus is an essential tenet of the Christian faith. That the overwhelming majority of liberal Christian professors, and the ministers taught by them (hardly a "tiny academic minority") does not is positive proof that you are wrong.

I don't believe in Jesus at all, but I don't think that gives me the right to decide what Christians believe, or even what they ought to believe. Christians get to decide those things, and when you're talking about theology, Christology, or textual criticism, Christian academics get to do that. Not you, and not me.

[Beth]

I am glad we agree on something (you are not a skeptic). :)

But your logic sucks going forward. You are trying to make my argument circular when it isn't. I don't start with the assumption that non atheists aren't skeptics. I actually evaluate the arguements that they used to draw the theistic conclusion, and invariably they do not follow the tennets of skepticism. That is why they not skeptics. So, every theist you've discussed the matter with doesn't qualify as a skeptic because you don't agree with their logic and arguments. And, somehow, this means that skeptics can't be theists? Do I need to point out the logical fallacies of this argument or can you spot them yourself?

That is why you are not a skeptic. It is not beause of the conclusion, it is their break from skepticism that allows them to draw the conclusion. You are reversing cause and effect. Hmm. The evidence I have available is that people exist who have, in fact, examined their religious beliefs skeptically and are not atheist. The conclusion I draw is that atheism is not an inevitable conclusion of such skeptical examination of belief. You, on the other hand, look at the same evidence and dismiss them as skeptics because they don't accept athiesm. Which of us is examining the available evidence skeptically and which of us is using the conclusion to justify our evaluation of the evidence?
I will let you argue with 'christianity' that people who don't beleive in a historical Jesus somehow still qualify as true christians. While there are many variations on the definition of christianity, the existance of Jesus is not one of those things up for debate.

As cnorman18 has already responded to this, I don't think I need to. Clearly, belief in the existance of an historical Jesus is not a requirement to be a Christian.

[Collin Merenoff]

In this case, it really is true, you are not a 'true' skeptic. This is not a fallacy, don't even bother trying to twist it that way.

So by your definition, a skeptic doesn't believe that anything ever happened unless either he sees it himself, he finds non-verbal evidence for it, or it's described by someone not involved.

This is not an issue of a definition that's fallacious, but a definition that excludes a large portion of daily activities. For example, skeptics cannot fall in love because they cannot trust a partner not to cheat.

What about the anecdotes that Randi posts in his newsletter. Do you believe them?

P.S.: Actually it could be considered an Ad Misericordium fallacy.

[NeilC]

I'll simply have to disagree to you on that. Subjective individual experience is evidence is valid, it's not verifiable and repeatable, thus it isn't scientific. If I say I talked to my daughter on the phone, you may have cause to doubt that statement but I can certainly accept it as valid.


So would you say you are agnostic about having talked to your daughter on the phone?

Have you had very believable personal evidence as to the existence of god?

[NeilC]

I'm also interested, Beth, if and why you consider the existence of a god to be any more believable than other supernatural claims like ghosts, psychics and mediums. Are you agnostic about them too.

[cnorman18]

Have you had very believable personal evidence as to the existence of god?

I know this question wasn't addressed to me, but I'll answer it anyway.

I have had a number of personal experiences that some might call
"providential," or, in some cases, even "miraculous".

I also believe in God.

But: I regard these experiences as neither proof of, nor evidence for, my belief.

I will say this: The idea that God might have had something to do with them does not conflict with my beliefs; but that's as far as I go.

I will add this, though; people who do regard such experiences as proof of or evidence for their faith have a perfect right to do so. They may not be properly "skeptical," but they are not necessarily either irrational or insane. Learning from one's personal experiences and organizing one's beliefs around them is rather more "normal" than not, and is certainly not contrary to either rationality or sanity.

Many--in fact, most--people neither live their lives nor make all their decisions on rigorously logical and scientifically verifiable grounds. I would be willing to bet that not everyone on this board--not even all the atheists--make all their decisions on those grounds either.

On the other hand, anyone who insists that his getting drunk and wrecking his car was "God's will" might be an irredeemable idiot.

[Beth]

So would you say you are agnostic about having talked to your daughter on the phone? No. I called her. I recognized her voice. I could be mistaken, but if I was as certain about the non-existance of any god, I would consider myself atheist, not agnostic.

Have you had very believable personal evidence as to the existence of god? No. That's one reason I'm agnostic.

I'm also interested, Beth, if and why you consider the existence of a god to be any more believable than other supernatural claims like ghosts, psychics and mediums. Are you agnostic about them too. Yes.

[NeilC]

No. I called her. I recognized her voice. I could be mistaken, but if I was as certain about the non-existance of any god, I would consider myself atheist, not agnostic. No. That's one reason I'm agnostic.

Yes.

Thanks. That last "yes" - was that saying your are agnostic about them?

What is your personal definition of agnostic?

I would consider myself atheistic towards both god and ghosts/spirits and indeed fairies on the basis that whilst I cannot of course positively disprove their existence (along with an infinite number of things I could create in my imagination) I see no reason to believe in them, certainly nothing remotely compelling. I would consider the evidence that they exist to be so weak that to all practical purposes I am pretty confident they don't exist. I call that atheism. Agnosticism on the other hand, to me at least, suggests a more even balance between belief and non-belief - that those two positions are to be considered, or are nearly equitable to the rational mind. I can't see that they are on that basis I do find it hard to reconcile being agnostic about them with being "a skeptic".

[NeilC]

I know this question wasn't addressed to me, but I'll answer it anyway.

I have had a number of personal experiences that some might call
"providential," or, in some cases, even "miraculous".

I also believe in God.

But: I regard these experiences as neither proof of, nor evidence for, my belief.

I will say this: The idea that God might have had something to do with them does not conflict with my beliefs; but that's as far as I go.

I will add this, though; people who do regard such experiences as proof of or evidence for their faith have a perfect right to do so. They may not be properly "skeptical," but they are not necessarily either irrational or insane. Learning from one's personal experiences and organizing one's beliefs around them is rather more "normal" than not, and is certainly not contrary to either rationality or sanity.

Many--in fact, most--people neither live their lives nor make all their decisions on rigorously logical and scientifically verifiable grounds. I would be willing to bet that not everyone on this board--not even all the atheists--make all their decisions on those grounds either.

On the other hand, anyone who insists that his getting drunk and wrecking his car was "God's will" might be an irredeemable idiot.

I sort of agree with much of that. I'm sure if I had a personal "godly" experience I'd take it into account. I'm not so clinincal in my thinking that I disregard all personal experience. I think this thread has demonstrated the difficulty with a very hard skeptical view - that which demands evidence for any belief held no matter how small. However belief in a god isn't such a small thing and given the number of very plausible reasons why a widespread belief in a non-existent god could persist I see no reason to believe it.

Do you consider yourself a skeptic?

What do you mean when you say you believe in god? What god? What religion (if any) what powers does your god have? Does it know you exist? Do you converse with it?

[cnorman18]

I sort of agree with much of that. I'm sure if I had a personal "godly" experience I'd take it into account. I'm not so clinincal in my thinking that I disregard all personal experience. I think this thread has demonstrated the difficulty with a very hard skeptical view - that which demands evidence for any belief held no matter how small. However belief in a god isn't such a small thing and given the number of very plausible reasons why a widespread belief in a non-existent god could persist I see no reason to believe it.

Do you consider yourself a skeptic?

Generally, yes. I don't buy into any claims that have to do with supernatural or otherworldly (e.g. UFO) phenomena.

What do you mean when you say you believe in god? What god? What religion (if any) what powers does your god have? Does it know you exist? Do you converse with it?

I am a former Christian--once a minister, in fact--who left my faith on more or less skeptical grounds. I am now Jewish.

I have written, and rather extensively, in my beliefs in various other posts, to which I refer you. Suffice it to say here that my views are rather nuanced, and, like Judaism itself, generally unrelated to the beliefs and practices of other faiths, even when they resemble them on the surface. Many non-Jewish people think they understand Judaism; very few actually do. (There are very few Jews who will claim to "understand Judaism," for that matter; and none of them are rabbis. They know better.)

I do pray, though Jewish prayer is not the same as Christian prayer. It mainly consists of the repetition of ancient formulas, intended more as a means of passing on knowledge of the tradition than communication with God. It is not an emotional, or in some ways, even a subjective experience. Most Jewish prayer is communal, and there are many prayers which may only be spoken when in a group of ten or more adult Jews.

I also pray in my own words from time to time; I doubt if "converse" is quite the right word, since I do not expect to be answered. Jews believe that if God speaks to one directly, one does not belong in a synagogue. but in a hospital.

[Bri]

What is your personal definition of agnostic?

I would consider myself atheistic towards both god and ghosts/spirits and indeed fairies on the basis that whilst I cannot of course positively disprove their existence (along with an infinite number of things I could create in my imagination) I see no reason to believe in them, certainly nothing remotely compelling. I would consider the evidence that they exist to be so weak that to all practical purposes I am pretty confident they don't exist.

If you believe that no gods exist, but you don't know for certain that they don't exist, then you're an agnostic atheist (i.e. a strong atheist).

Agnosticism/gnosticism isn't mutually exclusive of atheism/theism.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/429846c1d380840e4.gif

I call that atheism. Agnosticism on the other hand, to me at least, suggests a more even balance between belief and non-belief - that those two positions are to be considered, or are nearly equitable to the rational mind. I can't see that they are on that basis I do find it hard to reconcile being agnostic about them with being "a skeptic".

One can be a skeptic if one holds any of the "agnostic" positions (the three middle rows). You have very little evidence that there are no gods, therefore if you are an agnostic athiest (a strong atheist) you have about as much evidence to support your claim that there are no gods as an agnostic theist has to support their claim that there is one or more gods (that is, you have very little evidence that gods are impossible).

If you claim that a skeptic must have conclusive evidence for belief, then the only skeptical position would be a pure agnostic (a weak atheist) with no belief whatsoever for or against the existence of gods.

-Bri

[NeilC]

Generally, yes. I don't buy into any claims that have to do with supernatural or otherworldly (e.g. UFO) phenomena.



I am a former Christian--once a minister, in fact--who left my faith on more or less skeptical grounds. I am now Jewish.

I have written, and rather extensively, in my beliefs in various other posts, to which I refer you. Suffice it to say here that my views are rather nuanced, and, like Judaism itself, generally unrelated to the beliefs and practices of other faiths, even when they resemble them on the surface. Many non-Jewish people think they understand Judaism; very few actually do. (There are very few Jews who will claim to "understand Judaism," for that matter; and none of them are rabbis. They know better.)

I do pray, though Jewish prayer is not the same as Christian prayer. It mainly consists of the repetition of ancient formulas, intended more as a means of passing on knowledge of the tradition than communication with God. It is not an emotional, or in some ways, even a subjective experience. Most Jewish prayer is communal, and there are many prayers which may only be spoken when in a group of ten or more adult Jews.

I also pray in my own words from time to time; I doubt if "converse" is quite the right word, since I do not expect to be answered. Jews believe that if God speaks to one directly, one does not belong in a synagogue. but in a hospital.

Thanks for that.

I would suggest, if I might be so bold, that you might be skeptical in mindset towards some things but I suspect you are not necessarily applying the same thought processes towards your Jewish faith. I find this quite a common mindset with intelligent Christian friends who normally have been exposed, often quite strongly, to some sort of faith in their formative years.

[Bri]

Do you consider yourself a skeptic?

What do you mean when you say you believe in god? What god? What religion (if any) what powers does your god have? Does it know you exist? Do you converse with it?

I believe cnorman18 to be a skeptic concerning his belief in God. The only reasonable definition of skeptic that I can think of is one who questions his or her beliefs. cnorman18 is an agnostic theist -- he believes that there is a God, but admits that he doesn't know for certain. He certainly questions his own beliefs.

If you believe that cnormal18's position precludes him from being a skeptic, you'll have to tell us how you define "skeptic" and tell us why his position is any different from yours as far as evidence goes. Specifically, can you present evidence that there are no gods?

-Bri

[NeilC]

If you believe that no gods exist, but you don't know for certain that they don't exist, then you're an agnostic atheist (i.e. a strong atheist).

Agnosticism/gnosticism isn't mutually exclusive of atheism/theism.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/429846c1d380840e4.gif

One can be a skeptic if one holds any of the "agnostic" positions (the three middle rows). You have very little evidence that there are no gods, therefore if you are an agnostic athiest (a strong atheist) you have about as much evidence to support your claim that there are no gods as an agnostic theist has to support their claim that there is one or more gods (that is, you have very little evidence that gods are impossible).

If you claim that a skeptic must have conclusive evidence for belief, then the only skeptical position would be a pure agnostic (a weak atheist) with no belief whatsoever for or against the existence of gods.

-Bri

I'm not sure I need to be labelled according to that particular definition (there are quite a few out there) bearing in mind I already defined my position already.

I may have little evidence that there are no gods but that surely is not the point. I have no convincing evidence that gods exist at all. I don't need evidence to support a claim. I have no claim. I merely don't have satisfactory evidence to support the claim of a god. I don't see that is an equitable position to an agnostic theist. That person has no evidence but still chooses to believe in a supernatural being. Why would he do that?

[NeilC]

I believe cnorman18 to be a skeptic concerning his belief in God. The only reasonable definition of skeptic that I can think of is one who questions his or her beliefs. cnorman18 is an agnostic theist -- he believes that there is a God, but admits that he doesn't know for certain. He certainly questions his own beliefs.

If you believe that cnormal18's position precludes him from being a skeptic, you'll have to tell us how you define "skeptic" and tell us why his position is any different from yours as far as evidence goes. Specifically, can you present evidence that there are no gods?

-Bri

I don't think merely questioning your beliefs but then continuing to believe them without some convincing evidence necessarily makes you a skeptic. It makes you questioning and a bit doubtful.

Defining skeptic isn't simple. And usually in these discussions, defining it makes almost everyone's position untenable at some point. For my own skepticism I want convincing evidence to believe things, particularly outside of the established material realm.

I'm confused as to why I should have to provide evidence of no gods. Can you provide evidence that there is no invisible alien controlling your mind? Or anything else I decide to dream up?

There are, I would say, pretty convincing reasons why people would falsely believe in gods. So I want some convincing evidence that gods exist. Can you provide any?

[Bri]

I'm not sure I need to be labelled according to that particular definition (there are quite a few out there) bearing in mind I already defined my position already.

I agree, aside from the fact that most don't consider an agnostic viewpoint (that we don't know for certain whether or not there are gods) to be mutually exclusive with theism and atheism.

I may have little evidence that there are no gods but that surely is not the point. I have no convincing evidence that gods exist at all.


You have no convincing evidence that no gods exist.
You have no convincing evidence that gods exist.


Why do you believe a skeptic should choose (1) over (2) then since they are both without convincing evidence? What is your definition of skeptic that would allow you to include (1) but exclude (2) from being a skeptic?

I don't need evidence to support a claim. I have no claim.

Wrong. Unless you are a pure agnostic, you do make a claim: that no gods exist. That is a positive claim which requires evidence.

I merely don't have satisfactory evidence to support the claim of a god. I don't see that is an equitable position to an agnostic theist. That person has no evidence but still chooses to believe in a supernatural being. Why would he do that?

You don't have satisfactory evidence to support the belief that there is a god, nor do you have satisfactory evidence to support the belief that there are no gods.

Therefore, if you claim that a skeptic requires satisfactory evidence for belief, then you must be a pure agnostic concerning gods in order to be a skeptic. Unless you have a definition for "skeptic" that I'm not aware of.

-Bri

[Beth]

Thanks. That last "yes" - was that saying your are agnostic about them? Yes.

What is your personal definition of agnostic? Insufficient or conflicting evidence is available and I do not firmly believe in either conclusion.

I would consider myself atheistic towards both god and ghosts/spirits and indeed fairies on the basis that whilst I cannot of course positively disprove their existence (along with an infinite number of things I could create in my imagination) I see no reason to believe in them, certainly nothing remotely compelling. I would consider the evidence that they exist to be so weak that to all practical purposes I am pretty confident they don't exist. I call that atheism. Agnosticism on the other hand, to me at least, suggests a more even balance between belief and non-belief - that those two positions are to be considered, or are nearly equitable to the rational mind. I can't see that they are on that basis I do find it hard to reconcile being agnostic about them with being "a skeptic".

Agnostic does not mean that you consider both possibiliities equally likely. As Bri has pointed out, it's possible to be either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Neither position seems unskeptical to me.

[Bri]

I don't think merely questioning your beliefs but then continuing to believe them without some convincing evidence necessarily makes you a skeptic. It makes you questioning and a bit doubtful.

Then I am doubtful that you have questioned your belief that there are no gods without convincing evidence. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.


Defining skeptic isn't simple. And usually in these discussions, defining it makes almost everyone's position untenable at some point. For my own skepticism I want convincing evidence to believe things, particularly outside of the established material realm.

Then you must be an agnostic, because there is no convincing evidence that there are no gods. You would have to lack a belief one way or the other concerning the existence of gods to be a skeptic by the definition you seem to be using.

I'm confused as to why I should have to provide evidence of no gods. Can you provide evidence that there is no invisible alien controlling your mind? Or anything else I decide to dream up?

No, I can't. I'm the equivalent of an agnostic atheist concerning an invisible alien controlling my mind. According to your definition, that means I can't be a skeptic concerning the existence of invisible aliens.

There are, I would say, pretty convincing reasons why people would falsely believe in gods. So I want some convincing evidence that gods exist. Can you provide any?

Nope, I can't. Nor can you provide convincing evidence that no gods exist. I guess we're both not skeptics then!

-Bri

[NeilC]

I agree, aside from the fact that most don't consider an agnostic viewpoint (that we don't know for certain whether or not there are gods) to be mutually exclusive with theism and atheism.

[QUOTE]

If you define agnosticism thus then I'm agnostic since I'd be careful about using the term "for certain" - but then it impossible, by definition, to know anything "for certain" if you introduce concepts like a very long and concincing dream etc.

[QUOTE]


You have no convincing evidence that no gods exist.
You have no convincing evidence that gods exist.


Why do you believe a skeptic should choose (1) over (2) then since they are both without convincing evidence? What is your definition of skeptic that would allow you to include (1) but exclude (2) from being a skeptic?

[QUOTE]

I think because someone else introduced the idea that a god exists. I didn't grow up thinking one existed (it hasn't occured to my young son yet either) but it was introduced to me at school etc. When someone introduces a novel concept, particularly one so fundamental to my understanding of reality and nature, I feel the urge and right to ask them for evidence.

My definition of skepticim asks for evidence that such an amazing thing exists. I was also told father xmas exists and of course I believed it for a while too. Do I need now prove the non-existence of santa?

[QUOTE=Bri;3137876]

Wrong. Unless you are a pure agnostic, you do make a claim: that no gods exist. That is a positive claim which requires evidence.

[QUOTE]

No it isn't. I'm not claiming anything. I'm saying I don't believe it because there is no convincing evidence.

BTW, you never convinced me there is no alien controlling your mind.

[QUOTE=Bri;3137876]

You don't have satisfactory evidence to support the belief that there is a god, nor do you have satisfactory evidence to support the belief that there are no gods.

Therefore, if you claim that a skeptic requires satisfactory evidence for belief, then you must be a pure agnostic concerning gods in order to be a skeptic. Unless you have a definition for "skeptic" that I'm not aware of.

-Bri

I do have satisfactory evidence to support the belief that there is no god - the lack of evidence that god exists. That is all the evidence required. Otherwise may I demand you prove me my that you are not under the control of an invisible alien? Are you agnostic about my alien?

[Collin Merenoff]

There are, I would say, pretty convincing reasons why people would falsely believe in gods. So I want some convincing evidence that gods exist. Can you provide any?

I don't think the claim here is that God exists. I think the claim is that some types of belief in God do not prevent one from thinking critically in other areas. In other words, we are not asserting our belief in God, but rather our belief about ourselves as believers. That level of indirection brings the discussion into the realm of testability, specifically that of the logical coherence (or incoherence) of our posts -- which are, after all, the only thing we actually know about each other.

[Bri]

If you define agnosticism thus then I'm agnostic since I'd be careful about using the term "for certain" - but then it impossible, by definition, to know anything "for certain" if you introduce concepts like a very long and concincing dream etc.

Gnosticism/agnosticism is a claim about knowledge (whether or not you claim to know about the existence of gods). Theism/atheism is a claim about belief (whether or not you claim to believe that there are gods). You are agnostic, unless you claim that you know that there are no gods. You are an agnostic atheist, assuming that you believe that there are no gods rather than simply having no belief one way or the other.

I think because someone else introduced the idea that a god exists. I didn't grow up thinking one existed (it hasn't occured to my young son yet either) but it was introduced to me at school etc. When someone introduces a novel concept, particularly one so fundamental to my understanding of reality and nature, I feel the urge and right to ask them for evidence.

I agree, one should ask for evidence. However, one should also ask for evidence of a claim that there are no gods (a concept that you were also introduced to). Your young son probably hasn't even considered the concept of a god yet, so he couldn't possibly have a belief that there are gods or that there are no gods unless someone taught him the concept so that he could form an opinion one way or another. Your son is probably a pure agnostic concerning gods.

My definition of skepticim asks for evidence that such an amazing thing exists. I was also told father xmas exists and of course I believed it for a while too. Do I need now prove the non-existence of santa?

Not according to my definition of skepticism, but apparently according to yours.

No it isn't. I'm not claiming anything. I'm saying I don't believe it because there is no convincing evidence.

You didn't just say that you don't believe it (that would be agnosticism -- a lack of belief in the existence or non-existence of gods). You said that you believed that gods don't exist. That's an actual belief which requires evidence.

BTW, you never convinced me there is no alien controlling your mind.

I know. As I said, I'm an agnostic atheist (I suppose an agnostic a-alienist) concerning invisible aliens. According to your definition, since I cannot provide evidence that there isn't an alien controlling my mind, I cannot be a skeptic.

I do have satisfactory evidence to support the belief that there is a god - the lack of evidence that god exists. That is all the evidence required.

That is a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). A lack of evidence against your position is not evidence for your position. Otherwise, I could say the same thing about the belief that there are gods (the lack of evidence that there are no gods is evidence that there is at least one god).

Otherwise may I demand you prove me my that you are not under the control of an invisible alien? Are you agnostic about my alien?

Yes, I am agnostic about your alien, although I believe that your alien does not exist despite my lack of evidence in that regard. According to your definition, I am not a skeptic because of the lack of evidence for my belief that the alien doesn't exist.

However, I don't think you mean to exclude my position from being a skeptic, therefore you need to rethink your definition.

Maybe this will help: Can someone who believes that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system despite a complete lack of evidence be a skeptic?

-Bri

[NeilC]

"Gnosticism/agnosticism is a claim about knowledge (whether or not you claim to know about the existence of gods). Theism/atheism is a claim about belief (whether or not you claim to believe that there are gods). You are agnostic, unless you claim that you know that there are no gods."


I don't agree. I, and others, define atheism as A-theism. A lack of belief.


"I agree, one should ask for evidence. However, one should also ask for evidence of a claim that there are no gods (a concept that you were also introduced to). Your young son probably hasn't even considered the concept of a god yet, so he couldn't possibly have a belief that there are gods or that there are no gods unless someone taught him the concepts and helped him for the opinion."


I don't think I'm making a claim that no god exists as such. I'm merely saying that there is no reason to believe they do.


"You didn't just say that you don't believe it (that would be agnosticism -- a lack of belief in the existence or non-existence of gods). You said that you believed that gods don't exist. That's an actual belief which requires evidence."


Is this not just semantics? On one side we have no belief in god with no evidence there is a god. I call that atheism and skepticism. On the other hand we have a belief in god with no evidence there is a god. I call that faith. Surely if you have no belief in god then therefore you don't believe in god then therefore you can be said to have the belief there is no god? In your world that seems to move me from a passive position into one of a testable claim equitable to that of a believer in something with no evidence - into a position where i have to prove there is no god.


"I know. As I said, I'm an agnostic atheist (I suppose an agnostic a-alienist) concerning invisible aliens. According to your definition, since I cannot provide evidence that there isn't an alien controlling my mind, I cannot be a skeptic."


Why would should I demand you provide evidence against a bizarre claim with no evidence to back it up? It is up to me to demonstrate the likelihood of this alien. You should remain skeptical until I do.


"A lack of evidence against your position is not evidence for your position. Otherwise, I could say the same thing about the belief that there are gods (there is no evidence that there are no gods)."


But my position is that there is no evidence. So a lack of evidence isn't evidence for my position, it IS my postion. You are saying that a lack of evidence against my position that there is no evidence is not evidence there is no evidence? Personally I find this confusing!


"Can someone who believes that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system despite a complete lack of evidence be a skeptic?"


I think a skeptic would say he didn't know if there was life. He couldn't know because although we think life occurs naturally as a result of certain conditions we don't know just how common those conditions are.

Is your guy a skeptic? I think it would depend how strongly he believes. If he believes , without specific evidence to promote this belief then the more strongly he believes then the less skeptical he is being. Likewise the opposite would be true. However his is not the same as belief in god because we know life exists here on earth and the evidence is such that it's quite reasonable to consider that it can occur elsewhere. We have a model to support belief and a continuum of belief is sustainable. I don't see this applies to a belief in a supernatural being.

Maybe it would help if you briefly but precisely outlined your position on all this.

[Bri]

BTW, can you help me use the quote system?!

You enclose a quotation between [QUOTE ] and [/QUOTE ] tags (but without any spaces).

-Bri

[Bri]

I don't agree. I, and other, define atheism as A-theism. A lack of belief.

As do I. There are two possible positions concerning a lack of belief in gods:


a lack of belief in gods and a lack of belief that there are no gods.
a lack of belief in gods but a belief that there are no gods.


Position (1) is called a "weak atheist" or a "pure agnostic". Position (2) is called a "strong atheist" or an "agnostic atheist" (if one felt that one knew for certain that there were no gods, it would be a "gnostic atheist").

I don't think I'm making a claim that no god exists as such. I'm merely saying that there is no reason to believe they do.

So you're saying that you don't have an opinion one way or the other about whether or not gods exist (i.e. you are a pure agnostic on the issue of the existence or non-existence of gods)? I don't think that's true based on your previous comments concerning agnostics not being skeptics.

So, are you now claiming that only a person with no opinion whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of gods can be a skeptic?

Is this not just semantics? On one side we have no belief in god with no evidence there is a god. I call that atheism and skepticism.

As I said above, there are actually two possible positions that fall under "no belief in god." Are both positions skepticism? If one who holds the belief that there are no gods can be a skeptic, then so can one who holds the belief that there is a god.

On the other hand we have a belief in god with no evidence there is a god. I call that faith.

Faith is usually defined as belief without evidence. The belief that there are no gods is also faith by that definition.

Surely if you have no belief in god then therefore you don't believe in god then therefore you can be said to have the belief there is no god?

No, it is possible to have no belief one way or the other (like your son). Or you can believe that there are no gods. Or you can believe that there is at least one god.

Why would should I demand you provide evidence against a bizarre claim with no evidence to back it up? It is up to me to demonstrate the likelihood of this alien. You should remain skeptical until I do.

I agree that one can be a skeptic and hold a belief that there is no alien (a belief for which there is no evidence). However, you can't have it both ways. Someone who believes that the alien exists (a belief for which there is no evidence) might also be a skeptic.

I don't think you can state some rule for when someone can be a skeptic and when someone cannot be a skeptic that would always apply.

But my position is that there is no evidence. So a lack of evidence isn't evidence for my position, it IS my postion. You are saying that a lack of evidence against my position that there is no evidence is not evidence there is no evidence? Personally I find this confusing!

No, I'm saying that you have two opinions: 1) there is a lack of evidence for gods, and 2) there are no gods.

There is evidence of (1) but no evidence of (2). If you don't hold opinion (2) then you have no opinion whatsoever about whether or not gods exist. Are you arguing that one can only be a skeptic if one has no opinion whatsoever about whether or not gods exist?

I think a skeptic would say he didn't know if there was life. He couldn't know because although we think life occurs naturally as a result of certain conditions we don't know just how common those conditions are.

That is a statement about knowledge. I'm asking about belief. Can a skeptic believe that there is intelligent life outside the solar system while acknowledging that s/he doesn't know for sure? In other words, can a skeptic have an opinion about something for which there is no conclusive evidence?

Is your guy a skeptic? I think it would depend how strongly he believes. If he believes , without specific evidence to promote this belief then the more strongly he believes then the less skeptical he is being. Likewise the opposite would be true. However his is not the same as belief in god because we know life exists here on earth and the evidence is such that it's quite reasonable to consider that it can occur elsewhere. We have a model to support belief and a continuum of belief is sustainable. I don't see this applies to a belief in a supernatural being.

Now you're suggesting that the strength of belief for which there is little evidence is inversely proportional to the strength of skepticism. If that is the case, then someone who believes very strongly that there are no gods is less of a skeptic than someone who believes weakly that there are no gods. By that definition, a theist can be a skeptic.

Maybe it would help if you briefly but precisely outlined your position on all this.

My position is simple. An atheist and a theist can both be skeptics, as long as they're agnostic concerning the existence of gods (i.e. admit that they don't know for certain).

Furthermore, I don't think you can come up with a general rule that would allow an agnostic atheist to be a skeptic, but not allow an agnostic theist to be a skeptic.

-Bri

[Beth]

Why believe something with no evidence? Generally, people who believe in such theories have some evidence or reason to believe the way they do. Whether it's because of personal experience or because others, whom they trust and believe, have persuaded them. While it isn't objective verifiable evidence, such evidence suffices for most things in life.

Why should I have to refute any and all theories put to me no matter how outlandish? That is not a realistic way of gaining knowledge surely?

The only reason to refute any theory, whether of God, Santa, or mind-controlling aliens, is to persuade someone to believe differently than they already do. It's not really a way of gaining knowledge unless you are questioning and reconsidering your own beliefs on the matter.

[NeilC]

Sorry Bri but I edited to my post to sort the quotes out and in the process clarified my position. I'd be grateful if you'd edit your reply accordingly or it's gonna get too messy!

[Bri]

Splossy, I have edited my response above to match your clarifications. Please respond to my post above.

-Bri

[NeilC]

I know it's a bit of cheek considering how much I changed my statements!

[ponderingturtle]

Any belief can be worded in such a way that it can be impossible to distinguish from any other belief that is not supported by evidence.

So it is equally valid to say that the JREF is not an
Anti Creationist Organization
Anti Faith Healing Organization
Anti Telekinesis Organization'
and so on.

You can state any of those as statements of belief based not on evidence but personal experience and belief.

[Bri]

I know it's a bit of cheek considering how much I changed my statements!

Not a problem. I'm glad that you clarified your statements, actually. I think we are coming much closer to an agreement.

-Bri

[Bri]

Any belief can be worded in such a way that it can be impossible to distinguish from any other belief that is not supported by evidence.

So it is equally valid to say that the JREF is not an
Anti Creationist Organization
Anti Faith Healing Organization
Anti Telekinesis Organization'
and so on.

You can state any of those as statements of belief based not on evidence but personal experience and belief.

I'm not sure what you're saying. There is plenty of evidence that telekinesis doesn't "work" (of course, you would have to define what "work" means in this case). Under most definitions of "works" telekinesis can be tested.

Does that mean that telekinesis isn't possible? Of course it's possible. Can someone who believes that telekinesis works be a skeptic? Yes, depending on their definition of "works." I would expect that in order to be a skeptic, they would have to admit that they don't know for certain. They would also likely have to have an explanation for why telekinesis never "works" when tested under controlled conditions.

Is the burden of proof on the person who claims that telekinesis is real? Yes. Is the burden of proof on the person who claims that God is real? Yes.

-Bri

[voidx]

If you believe that no gods exist, but you don't know for certain that they don't exist, then you're an agnostic atheist (i.e. a strong atheist).

Agnosticism/gnosticism isn't mutually exclusive of atheism/theism.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/429846c1d380840e4.gif

Of course, the underlying weakness, or mistake with that range is that its a list of worldviews, all defined in relation to a belief in God. Is it not possible to have a worldview with a clear lack of any conception of God. A world view that simply abstains from any position on metaphysical questions since they can't be answered anyway?

Even the term Atheist is derived as the antithesis of theism. And so people get the impression that any worldview, must have some take on, or belief regarding "God". When in fact nothing of the kind is explicitly necessary.

I think its clear that there is such a long and ingrained cultural history of conceptions of God, that we have in large part lost the ability to conceive of any worldview that lacks it, or simply does not posit it period, or in anyway makes any comment on it.

God is far to culturally loaded of a word to use anyway. What is the defintion of God that any worldview wanting to deny it, if they really insisted on doing so, would have to disagree with? No one knows and no one can agree.

To my mind, the only logical framework is to work through the scientific method, to work on what is observable and objectively knowable. Subjective experiences have their place here to, but they are by necessity of lesser veracity, because bias, and perceptual illusion cannot be adequately removed. A persons subjective experiences aren't even clearly defined to themselves. You judge conscious experience through the very consciousness providing the experience. It's a huge problem for the veracity of subjective evidences. Anyone thinking their experiences and perceptions are without fail, that puts unquestioned veracity in things "I experienced", hasn't learned enough to truly understand why this is a dangerous position to take.

Anyone asking, in relation to this framework, "What is your position on God?", should be asked the logical question "What is God?". In the context of that observable framework, what is God? Knowable only through subjective experience? That assumes there is a non physical correlate to subjective experience, provide a logical justification for thinking so. Further subjective experiences? A feeling of knowing what you felt is real? Its all rather circular. Its an arbitrary assumption based on cultural leanings.

Just be careful. God is not a default position for existence, and many of you would seemingly agree. Why then does it sneak its way into being a necessary attribute of which a person must have an opinion upon, in any given worldview?

[Bri]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/429846c1d380840e4.gif

Of course, the underlying weakness, or mistake with that range is that its a list of worldviews, all defined in relation to a belief in God. Is it not possible to have a worldview with a clear lack of any conception of God. A world view that simply abstains from any position on metaphysical questions since they can't be answered anyway?

I imagine that would be an agnostic (agnostic weak atheist) position (the center bar on the table).

Even the term Atheist is derived as the antithesis of theism. And so people get the impression that any worldview, must have some take on, or belief regarding "God". When in fact nothing of the kind is explicitly necessary.

I think I already mentioned that Splossy's son (who doesn't even know the concept of "god") is an agnostic by definition.

To my mind, the only logical framework is to work through the scientific method, to work on what is observable and objectively knowable. Subjective experiences have their place here to, but they are by necessity of lesser veracity, because bias, and perceptual illusion cannot be adequately removed. A persons subjective experiences aren't even clearly defined to themselves. You judge conscious experience through the very consciousness providing the experience. It's a huge problem for the veracity of subjective evidences. Anyone thinking their experiences and perceptions are without fail, that puts unquestioned veracity in things "I experienced", hasn't learned enough to truly understand why this is a dangerous position to take.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with most of this, except that science doesn't have much to say concerning whether or not gods exist, given that it is unfalsifiable and science generally deals with the falsifiable.

Just be careful. God is not a default position for existence, and many of you would seemingly agree. Why then does it sneak its way into being a necessary attribute of which a person must have an opinion upon, in any given worldview?

I don't think anyone suggested that everyone must have an opinion about God. I suggested that someone can have an opinion about God and still be considered a skeptic, regardless of what that opinion is.

ETA: Part of the confusion may be the statements that I placed in each category (row) of the table. Those are just example statements of a likely position within the category, but not the only position that would fit in that category. You are correct in pointing out that ignorance is a valid reason for an agnostic (agnostic weak atheist) position, but probably not the most common among adults.

-Bri

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure what you're saying. There is plenty of evidence that telekinesis doesn't "work" (of course, you would have to define what "work" means in this case). Under most definitions of "works" telekinesis can be tested.

I am talking about the belief in telekinesis not a telekinetic claim.

It is saying "I believe that the power of will can when exerted properly strongly effect the physical universe in direct ways such as telekinesis" that is not a testable claim, you can not support or refute it.

Anything can be believed in in the abstract, and it is not more than aesthetically different from religious beliefs that are being asked to go unchallenged.

[voidx]

I imagine that would be an agnostic (agnostic weak atheist) position (the center bar on the table).

You might suggest its quibbling over semantics, but even the agnostic definition is couched in terms in relation to whether its possible/impossible to know if gods exist. Its impossible to know, hence I lack a belief in them. I realize that since the belief in conceptions in God is so pervavsive in our society that its pretty much impossible to get away from. It would seem disingenious to just outright deny that the concepts exist and have no opinion one way or the other.

The frustrating part is, its often trotted out to make the statement of your worldview is no more justifiable than mine. I've a belief in God, you've a disbelief. their both just as valid. I personally think that to be untrue. Most people don't tend to believe its possible for an adult person to simply not have a conception of God in their worldview. I've no idea what it is, and so its negation is not even necessary in my opinion. Its a none issue. But I see that position often getting rolled into, "so you just don't believe in God then, so why not?". Which I think misses the entire point.


I think I already mentioned that Splossy's son (who doesn't even know the concept of "god") is an agnostic by definition.

I'd disagree slightly. Most agnostics have considered the question of conceptions of God and have come out saying essentially that they cannot and do not know, and so they abstain from commenting. Splossy's son has a true lack of conception of God. He's never considered it because he isn't able to yet.


I don't think anyone is disagreeing with most of this, except that science doesn't have much to say concerning whether or not gods exist, given that it is unfalsifiable and science generally deals with the falsifiable.

Partially because the questions of the existence of gods are incomprehensible. Science can always rely on testing its theories against what is logically falsifiable in relation to what is observable. Conceptions of God lack this. The only obserable phenomena we have is the external behaviour of those who subscribe to these conceptions. And in that regard, they should be treated as such, as a behavioural/cultural artifact until such time as there's some reason to think they cannot be.


I don't think anyone suggested that everyone must have an opinion about God. I suggested that someone can have an opinion about God and still be considered a skeptic, regardless of what that opinion is.

How should one be expected to have any opinion, that is not completely arbitrary, about something with no clear definition? I think many people take beliefs they hold, but knowingly cannot logically support and turn them into opinions. There's a sense of neutrality to "opinions". Because people feel less threatened to have an opinion shown wrong as a personal belief. I have some trouble defining the difference between an opinion nd a belief. Especially beliefs that have no logical or falsifiable basis.

I also don't take skeptic as a label or a group to which people are either members or non-members. Skepticism is a process of evaluating experience. People are very skeptical of many things and completely unskeptical of others, based on their personal bias'. Every "skeptic" in my opinion has something that they left have a free ride. A small little sacred cow that slips harsh skeptical inquiry.

To my mind, this is necessary to a degree, because we cannot possibly have all the knowledge of every thought or concept we'd like to subscribe too. I think the only honest way of being as skeptical as possible to all the concepts we subscribe too is to be brutally honest with ourselves. Most people aren't, I'm not convinced I am all the time. And so what gets proper skeptical treatment and what doesn't varies. As does peoples conceptions of what a proper skeptical examination of any particular idea is.

Athlon stated that anyone following an honest skeptical approach to life would come to a conclusion of atheism, or since that word is horribly loaded, a realization in the non-necessity for a conception of God in our current world view. He can correct me if I'm wrong. The key here is honest inquiry, and that varies based on a persons intelligence, their education, their desire for truth, their motivation for in depth research, the strength of the particular sacred cows they cling too, etc.

In that regard I don't think everyone would arrive at the same conclusion, because everyone feels they give their ideas a good honest skeptical once over. Most people aren't aware of the bias and logical fallacies their committing. Sometimes the only way their made obvious is by strong challengs to our beliefs, and in the effort to trying to defend them, find assumptions that make us uncomfortable.

What I do agree with is that anyone that goes down that path, is honest, does the research and takes serious stock of the assumptions that make up the foundation of their beliefs, should eventually arrive that all metaphysical explanations are essentially incomprehensible, and that having an opinion about any of them is arbitrary at best and merely an exercise in taking what we'd like to be true and flipping it over into a semi-believed "opinion".

Anyway, I'm rambling badly at this point so I'll shut my trap :D

[Bri]

I am talking about the belief in telekinesis not a telekinetic claim.

It is saying "I believe that the power of will can when exerted properly strongly effect the physical universe in direct ways such as telekinesis" that is not a testable claim, you can not support or refute it.

Anything can be believed in in the abstract, and it is not more than aesthetically different from religious beliefs that are being asked to go unchallenged.

The JREF tests claims -- as far as I know, it does not make any attempt to disprove the phenomenon. However, the more claims that are tested (and fail), the stronger the evidence that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

If that's what you're getting at, then I agree.

-Bri

[voidx]

I am talking about the belief in telekinesis not a telekinetic claim.

It is saying "I believe that the power of will can when exerted properly strongly effect the physical universe in direct ways such as telekinesis" that is not a testable claim, you can not support or refute it.

Anything can be believed in in the abstract, and it is not more than aesthetically different from religious beliefs that are being asked to go unchallenged.
Dennett discusses something similar in his book "Breaking the Spell" about the political incorrectness of examining peoples religious beliefs.

He thinks that most people don't actually belief in any literal God agent. One that interacts directly with the physical universe. It just seems to improbable a concept with our growing scientific knowledge. But people don't want to drop a belief that is so ingrained in us, and that most of us have so much invested in.

So instead people have shifted to a belief in "the belief of God". One should believe in a conception of God, whatever that conception might be. Because for most people, that concept is still tied to aspects of morality, social cohesion, personal salvation or redemption.

The question becomes, in relation to say telekinesis, "Is there any logical basis for thinking any such phenomena exists in the physical world?" Its important, otherwise we'd be off testing every bizarre idea anyone ever dreamed up and finding, not suprisingly that the overwhelming majority of them have no basis in anything except our imaginations.

[ponderingturtle]

The JREF tests claims -- as far as I know, it does not make any attempt to disprove the phenomenon. However, the more claims that are tested (and fail), the stronger the evidence that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

If that's what you're getting at, then I agree.

-Bri

And how main failed claims have been made about various gods?

Why are religious claims any different from other supernatural claims? They are not.

The JREF is not an antiparanormal organization because of that.

[Bri]

You might suggest its quibbling over semantics, but even the agnostic definition is couched in terms in relation to whether its possible/impossible to know if gods exist.

Here's a more complete table, of which the previously-posted table was a simplified version:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/429846c1d38073a8f.gif

Again, the quotes within each box are just examples. The boxes along the left and top are attempts at more precise definitions of the possible positions.

Its impossible to know, hence I lack a belief in them.

Agnosticism is actually a statement that the existence/nonexistence of gods is unknown. It can be further broken down into "weak" and "hard" agnosticism (the latter the belief that it is unknowable).

I realize that since the belief in conceptions in God is so pervavsive in our society that its pretty much impossible to get away from. It would seem disingenious to just outright deny that the concepts exist and have no opinion one way or the other.

Generally, agnostics don't deny that the concept exists. They simply have no opinion one way or the other. Some agnostics, as you've pointed out, have no opinion one way or another due to ignorance of the topic.

The frustrating part is, its often trotted out to make the statement of your worldview is no more justifiable than mine. I've a belief in God, you've a disbelief. their both just as valid. I personally think that to be untrue. Most people don't tend to believe its possible for an adult person to simply not have a conception of God in their worldview. I've no idea what it is, and so its negation is not even necessary in my opinion. Its a none issue. But I see that position often getting rolled into, "so you just don't believe in God then, so why not?". Which I think misses the entire point.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here.

I'd disagree slightly. Most agnostics have considered the question of conceptions of God and have come out saying essentially that they cannot and do not know, and so they abstain from commenting.

Yes, I think that's what I said.

Splossy's son has a true lack of conception of God. He's never considered it because he isn't able to yet.

Again, I think that's what I said. Both are different agnostic positions. Whether you want to consider Splossy's son to be an agnostic or not is indeed just semantics. If "gnostic" means that one believes that they know for certain whether or not there is a god, then Splossy's son is indeed agnostic in that he doesn't hold such a belief.

Partially because the questions of the existence of gods are incomprehensible.

Incomprehensible how? Obviously, people who believe in the existence of gods don't find the question incomprehensible.

Science can always rely on testing its theories against what is logically falsifiable in relation to what is observable. Conceptions of God lack this. The only obserable phenomena we have is the external behaviour of those who subscribe to these conceptions. And in that regard, they should be treated as such, as a behavioural/cultural artifact until such time as there's some reason to think they cannot be.

Why would you assume it to be a cultural artifact when there is no evidence of that? No, science can and does take the only honest approach, which is that we don't know.

How should one be expected to have any opinion, that is not completely arbitrary, about something with no clear definition? I think many people take beliefs they hold, but knowingly cannot logically support and turn them into opinions. There's a sense of neutrality to "opinions". Because people feel less threatened to have an opinion shown wrong as a personal belief. I have some trouble defining the difference between an opinion nd a belief. Especially beliefs that have no logical or falsifiable basis.

An opinion is a type of belief. An agnostic atheist or agnostic theist is admitting that their belief is only opinion (as opposed to fact).

I also don't take skeptic as a label or a group to which people are either members or non-members. Skepticism is a process of evaluating experience. People are very skeptical of many things and completely unskeptical of others, based on their personal bias'. Every "skeptic" in my opinion has something that they left have a free ride. A small little sacred cow that slips harsh skeptical inquiry.

I agree with this. However, I don't think having an opinion about something for which there is little evidence precludes one from being a skeptic about the topic about which one has the opinion. That's why I said that I define skepticism as questioning one's own beliefs. It's problematic to define it in any more restrictive way than that.

Athlon stated that anyone following an honest skeptical approach to life would come to a conclusion of atheism, or since that word is horribly loaded, a realization in the non-necessity for a conception of God in our current world view. He can correct me if I'm wrong. The key here is honest inquiry, and that varies based on a persons intelligence, their education, their desire for truth, their motivation for in depth research, the strength of the particular sacred cows they cling too, etc.

I disagree. I think that someone following an honest skeptical approach to the question of the existence of God might come to the opposite opinion -- that God exists.

In that regard I don't think everyone would arrive at the same conclusion, because everyone feels they give their ideas a good honest skeptical once over. Most people aren't aware of the bias and logical fallacies their committing. Sometimes the only way their made obvious is by strong challengs to our beliefs, and in the effort to trying to defend them, find assumptions that make us uncomfortable.

Some people do strongly challenge their beliefs, and still come to the conclusion that God exists. Some people who believe that God doesn't exist don't challenge their belief at all.

What I do agree with is that anyone that goes down that path, is honest, does the research and takes serious stock of the assumptions that make up the foundation of their beliefs, should eventually arrive that all metaphysical explanations are essentially incomprehensible, and that having an opinion about any of them is arbitrary at best and merely an exercise in taking what we'd like to be true and flipping it over into a semi-believed "opinion".

The same could probably be said of the opinion that there are no gods.

Anyway, I'm rambling badly at this point so I'll shut my trap :D

I enjoyed the rambling nonetheless!

-Bri

[Bri]

And how main failed claims have been made about various gods?

Which gods specifically are you referring to? If a particular god is proven to not exist, would that prove every god doesn't exist? As far as I know, the common Christian notion of God has not been proven to not exist.

Why are religious claims any different from other supernatural claims? They are not.

Religious claims that cannot be tested are not different than other supernatural claims that cannot be tested in that regard. But they do differ from claims that can be tested, such as those claims that the JREF is interested in.

The JREF is not an antiparanormal organization because of that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "antiparanormal organization."

-Bri

[cnorman18]

(Splossy) I would suggest, if I might be so bold, that you might be skeptical in mindset towards some things but I suspect you are not necessarily applying the same thought processes towards your Jewish faith. I find this quite a common mindset with intelligent Christian friends who normally have been exposed, often quite strongly, to some sort of faith in their formative years.

(Bri) I believe cnorman18 to be a skeptic concerning his belief in God. The only reasonable definition of skeptic that I can think of is one who questions his or her beliefs. cnorman18 is an agnostic theist -- he believes that there is a God, but admits that he doesn't know for certain. He certainly questions his own beliefs....


I have taken no offense from anyone here, but to speak for myself:

I don't know that exposure to religion at an early age has affected my present beliefs, but then I remember little from that time. Could be, but I rather doubt it.

I have some neurological peculiarities that prevent my having much emotional attachment to anything (see my thread, "What Judaism IS" for details). Those probably impact the nature and structure of my beliefs more than anything that happened to me as a child.

I do not think it quite accurate to say that I question my belief in God. I don't. My understanding of God has changed considerably over the years, and continues to do so; but that is not the same thing. For me, God's existence is no more subject to questioning or falsification than my own. It's a integral, rock-bottom aspect of reality itself.

The Christian theologian Paul Tillich once defined God as "the Ground of Being." I doubt I can do better. (That concept is rather more complex, nuanced and advanced than the "invisible sky daddy" or "big bearded grandfather" caricatures that are posted here so often.) For me, among other things, it means that a belief in God is as necessary to understanding myself, other people, my relationship to them, the Universe, and my relationship to it as the concept of Number is to doing mathematics.

For those who would wish to convince me that my thinking is immature, illogical, or otherwise erroneous (I do not address these remarks to either Splossy or Bri) --don't bother, on two accounts.

First, one aspect of this conviction that I have is that the use of logic itself is an acknowledgment of God. The universe is clearly based on and is accessible to reason; things make sense. For me, that entails the existence of a Mind other than my own. I don't expect or advocate that anyone else think this way, but that is how my mind works. I am as introspective, reflective and rational a guy as you'd ever want to meet, and I have tried all my life to find and explore other ways to think; but for me, I might as well have been looking for other kinds of air to breathe.

Second, just as no one is here to be preached to by those who believe differently--well, neither am I. We can all agree that it is insufferably rude and self-righteous for Christians to come here and tell people they are benighted, obstinate sinners doomed to Hell. Frankly, I find it just as rude and self-righteous for atheists to tell me that I am a benighted, obstinate idiot doomed to irrelevance and intellectual insignificance. We can disagree and debate and compare each other's thoughts and beliefs till the cows come home, but don't assume it as a given that I am a credulous child or an intellectual cripple because I believe in God. You do not have that right.

(And no, this is not an "atheist forum" where believers are not welcome or subject to unwarranted harassment. I have been told both. I disagree. Besides, it says not right at the top of this thread.)

This response was originally much longer, but I found myself holding forth on the reasons I abandoned Christianity in favor of Judaism. That but of reflection might be of interest to others, and I shall shortly be posting it as a separate thread. The issue of rationality and self-consistency in religious understanding shall be explored there.

One more note; if anyone wants to classify me as an "agnostic theist" or a "skeptical Jew" or a "post-Christian theistic quasi-agnostic rationalist," feel free.
I really don't think it much matters. Those are just words, and in my opinion, trying to decide which wing and floor of the Skeptic's Club one should go to the bathroom in is of limited significance. I haven't seen so much wrangling over definitions since my Moral Theology class spent two weeks figuring out the varying degrees of unequivocal, equivocal, conditional, problematic, vanilla and butter pecan "rightness". It's kind of fun to watch the serves and volleys, though.

[Bri]

cnorman18, for the record I didn't mean to speak for you, but rather was giving my opinion based on your past posts. I think that if you didn't question your beliefs concerning God, your understanding of God could never change. So even though you feel your belief in God is rock-solid, you still question your beliefs. To question one's beliefs doesn't necessarily mean that you'll change your mind. But you have implied in some previous posts on other threads that you don't know for certain that God exists (unless I've misunderstood). That in and of itself tells me that you do question your beliefs concerning God even if you conclude that God does exist. But as always, my opinions are only my own!

-Bri

[cnorman18]

cnorman18, for the record I didn't mean to speak for you, but rather was giving my opinion based on your past posts. I think that if you didn't question your beliefs concerning God, your understanding of God could never change. So even though you feel your belief in God is rock-solid, you still question your beliefs. To question one's beliefs doesn't necessarily mean that you'll change your mind. But you have implied in some previous posts on other threads that you don't know for certain that God exists (unless I've misunderstood). That in and of itself tells me that you do question your beliefs concerning God even if you conclude that God does exist. But as always, my opinions are only my own!

-Bri

Hey, no problem; your perceptions are perfectly right. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was irritated or anything like it. I wasn't.

As you can see, I'm a tad compulsive about making my positions clear. I just wanted to clarify matters.

I suppose it's conceivable that I might lose my belief in God one day, but it's rather more likely that I would renounce Judaism. The fact is, I have just as little an emotional investment in Judaism as I did in Christianity. It just makes sense to me, and though I don't see that changing, I suppose it's possible.

As far as God is concerned, though, it's more probable that I'd just get really, really pissed at Him. Been there and done that, actually. Got the T-shirt and the gimme cap.

[voidx]

I think my point got a little lost in the rambling.

It relies quite heavily on the idea that people's connection with their conception of God exists solely through subjective internal experiences. For many, the conception of God is shaped and influenced by a particular religion or theistic ideology. Religions and peoples conceptions of deities have changed over time. For most they've retreated backwards into vagueness, into a God of the gaps, or a God as the Laws of Physics.

I think its entirely reasonable and can be shown that religions and their conceptions of Gods have evolved and changed over time to make, or to influence cultural pressures.

Science has also had an effect indirectly. Opening our eyes, explaining phenomena that was once the domain of deities. Theism as an explanatory framework in modern times is quite powerless. But it is still a very strong cultural meme. One with arguably strong advantages, for those that belong, that may potentially outride its disadvantages. I think we need to explore this in much more detail.

We also are learning more about conscious experience. I think the more we learn, the more we're forced to cast doubt on just how narrow conscious experience is in regards to the amount of information that exists within reality. And how blind we are to it, even our own internal experiences when we rely on subjective experience alone.

"Consciousness" is blind to most of what happens within the object that likely it is an emergent property of, the physical body and brain. Some would take this fact to say, "Well see, there's so much we can't know, can't experience, so therefore it cannot be ruled out that some conception of God exists in the gaps.". And perhaps that's a valid enough comment. However, they tend not to turn it around. That since we're still learning so much about conscious experience, that peoples internal experiences, their validating experiences with God are also suspect. And since that's the only tie they have to the concept, it's a problem. It should cause doubt in anyone that is honestly taking stock of their own assumptions about their experiences of God.

I'll admit I may have been over-stepping my thoughts to a degree before. It revolves around how much a persons position on the existence of deities, defines their worldview. They are not one and the same. However, I think necessarily for theists, it strongly influences their worldview. It seems a vital question, something that must be answered, because its so central to their beliefs.

For a non-theist, its just another concept in a large list of human conceptions. It deserves no special treatment as a concept. And as an explanatory framework its very vague and seemingly quite powerless in regards to the known laws of our reality.

I previously said peoples conceptions of God were incomprehensible. That was a poor choice of words. Perhaps incoherent is better, or at the very least objectively illogical. I've had conversations with many open minded theists on here. Most admit that there seems to be no logical or rational basis for the belief in their existence of God. They cannont quantify it in anyway except through internal experience. And there's no reason to believe its nothing more than simple experience, except that there's a meme there that draws them towards a conception of God, linking it to these experiences. Seemingly for no reason they can quantify, but it simply "feels" right. That tied to a desire for a conception of God to be true because its a comforting ideal seems to cement what seems a rather vague opinion into an unshakable belief in the belief in God.

Its holding your sacred cow over your head as you wade deeper into the waters of rationality and knowable objective reality. Hoping that those waters don't get so high as to wash away your sacred cow, but that instead your cow will be the key to understanding the ebb and flow of the waters your wading into, as you eventually go deeper and deeper. You see no reason to discard it so long as you can hold it up above your head, safe from any objective inquiry, regardless of how useless it may be, perched up over your head as it is.

[Collin Merenoff]

Is the burden of proof on the person who claims that telekinesis is real? Yes. Is the burden of proof on the person who claims that God is real? Yes.

Only if they're made in places where the burden of proof rule applies.

[Collin Merenoff]

I have taken no offense from anyone here, but to speak for myself:

.....



That nails down my belief better than I could've said it myself.

By the way, I'm autistic too.

[T'ai Chi]

Rule 11 breach removed.

[Bri]

Only if they're made in places where the burden of proof rule applies.

What places would those be?

By the way, I'm autistic too.

Do you use FC to communicate?

-Bri

[Bri]

For most they've retreated backwards into vagueness, into a God of the gaps, or a God as the Laws of Physics.

I'm guessing that most theists would object to your characterization of their beliefs as a "God of the gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)." Most theists I know don't believe that anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, that the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature. Rather, they tend to believe that God created nature itself, just as it is.

"Consciousness" is blind to most of what happens within the object that likely it is an emergent property of, the physical body and brain. Some would take this fact to say, "Well see, there's so much we can't know, can't experience, so therefore it cannot be ruled out that some conception of God exists in the gaps.".

Again, I would say that most theists believe that science simply uncovers facts about nature as created by God. And yes, that conception of God might exist -- not in the gaps but outside of nature itself.

And perhaps that's a valid enough comment. However, they tend not to turn it around. That since we're still learning so much about conscious experience, that peoples internal experiences, their validating experiences with God are also suspect. And since that's the only tie they have to the concept, it's a problem. It should cause doubt in anyone that is honestly taking stock of their own assumptions about their experiences of God.

I think your argument here is that people only believe in God because of internal experiences, and since internal experiences may not be real or may be incomplete that's no reason to believe in God.

Of course people's internal experiences are "suspect." But when it comes down to it, all we have are our internal experiences. We may very well live in a simulation (http://www.simulation-argument.com/) or the universe might only be a figment of our imagination. But I see no reason to necessarily assume solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) just because our internal experiences are "suspect." Indeed, it would be nonsense to live our lives as though nothing were real.

I previously said peoples conceptions of God were incomprehensible. That was a poor choice of words. Perhaps incoherent is better, or at the very least objectively illogical. I've had conversations with many open minded theists on here. Most admit that there seems to be no logical or rational basis for the belief in their existence of God.

There is a difference (in my opinion) between having no logical or rational basis for the belief that God exists and the belief in an incoherent or illogical God. I believe the former simply represents an acknowledgment by theists that their belief in God is based on faith rather than fact, and an acknowledgment that their belief in God differs from their belief in, say, gnomes and faeries where the default position is usually non-belief in the absence of conclusive evidence. However, I would not equate those acknowledgments with admitting that their concept of God is logically incoherent. In addition, we all take these sorts of "leaps of faith" by having opinions on a variety of subjects despite a lack of conclusive evidence.

-Bri

[Collin Merenoff]

What places would those be?

Here, for example.

Do you use FC to communicate?

No, I talk, or I type on an ordinary computer.

Off Topic: There should be a thread about FC. I've heard that it doesn't really work; that it was proven to be just ideomotor by proxy.

[Bri]

So, are you saying that the burden of proof only holds here, but not elsewhere? What do you mean?

[OFF TOPIC]I saw a television program where they showed a double-blind test that showed that FC didn't work. The facilitators were simply devastated, and it was quite obvious that they hadn't realized that they were the ones speaking, not the person they were facilitating.[/OFF TOPIC]

-Bri

[NeilC]

As do I. There are two possible positions concerning a lack of belief in gods:


a lack of belief in gods and a lack of belief that there are no gods.
a lack of belief in gods but a belief that there are no gods.


Position (1) is called a "weak atheist" or a "pure agnostic". Position (2) is called a "strong atheist" or an "agnostic atheist" (if one felt that one knew for certain that there were no gods, it would be a "gnostic atheist").



I won't answer every point in turn since the same point has been made several times.

I think I've been slow coming to see exactly what you were saying. On a logical basis I cannot deny that an active belief that there are no gods is a non-provable stance and therefore could be considered unskeptical depending on how ones defines skepticism.

However I'm not so sure it goes as far as being faith in the same way that a believer has faith in their god in common parlance.

The thing is I can say I do not believe in god because of lack of credible evidence. To say I believe there is no god begs the question: what god? If we mean a christian god who supposedly intervenes in a certain way then maybe we can rationally exlude him if such interventions have no evidence. If we are merely talking about the idea of a god or gods who just started off the universe and it's laws then clearly no evidence of non-existence is possible.

In which case why are we talking about god in the first place? It wouldn't make any difference if he existed or not.

I don't find it non-skeptical to say that there probably are no gods because there is no plausible reason to think there is a god and the reasons given by believers are explainable without recourse to some supernatural being.

I was wondering: what other things are we agnostic about according to definition 1?


I don't think you can state some rule for when someone can be a skeptic and when someone cannot be a skeptic that would always apply.


That must be correct.


In other words, can a skeptic have an opinion about something for which there is no conclusive evidence?


Yes I think he must be able to hold opinions without conclusive evidence. There are various matters where not conclusive evidence exists and opinions can be held as long as they are known to be opinions and not facts.


Now you're suggesting that the strength of belief for which there is little evidence is inversely proportional to the strength of skepticism. If that is the case, then someone who believes very strongly that there are no gods is less of a skeptic than someone who believes weakly that there are no gods. By that definition, a theist can be a skeptic.


I guess I am suggesting that in that case. Does it prove that or just that hard atheists are not being skeptical in respect to their active belief there is no god and that the more active that belief is, the less skeptical they are being.

I must say this has been interesting and educational to me.

[JoeEllison]

Premise number 2 is false. There is no objective verifiable evidence for god. There is plenty of subjective individual evidence.

"Subjective individual evidence" is an oxymoron. That's the flaw in that line of thinking.

[Beth]

"Subjective individual evidence" is an oxymoron. That's the flaw in that line of thinking.

I must disagree. For example, subjective individual evidence is what doctors use to diagnose illnesses. It's not considered as good as a well established lab test, but there are many diseases for which no lab test is available. Doctors have to rely on the subjective individual evidence that their patients report. Surely you would not claim that the internal experiences (symptoms) a patient reports do not qualify as evidence?

[Bri]

I think I've been slow coming to see exactly what you were saying. On a logical basis I cannot deny that an active belief that there are no gods is a non-provable stance and therefore could be considered unskeptical depending on how ones defines skepticism.

However I'm not so sure it goes as far as being faith in the same way that a believer has faith in their god in common parlance.

I don't like the word "faith" for the reason that it implies a religious belief, and certainly the belief that there are no gods is not a religious belief. However, if faith is simply "belief without proof" then it would apply to both belief that there is a god and belief that there are no gods. I think I prefer the word "opinion" or something similar to signify belief without conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Anyway, I'm not sure it's possible to quantify the differences between belief in a god and belief that there are no gods in such a way that you could come up with a general definition of "skepticism" that would entirely include one belief but exclude the other.

The thing is I can say I do not believe in god because of lack of credible evidence.

To be precise (because English phrases like "I don't believe" have multiple meanings) you can say that you lack a belief in either the existence or non-existence of gods due to lack of evidence. That is a strictly agnostic viewpoint, and signifies no belief (as opposed to a belief that there is a god or a belief that there are no gods).

To say I believe there is no god begs the question: what god? If we mean a christian god who supposedly intervenes in a certain way then maybe we can rationally exlude him if such interventions have no evidence.

I agree. It is possible to believe that certain gods don't exist (assuming you can provide significant evidence that the definition of those gods are logically self-contradictory or contradictory with reality) while being strictly agnostic about the existence of other gods. The problem is that I've never seen a conclusive logical proof that the Christian God cannot or does not exist. So again I'm not sure if you can define "skepticism" in such as way as to entirely exclude belief in the Christian God.

If we are merely talking about the idea of a god or gods who just started off the universe and it's laws then clearly no evidence of non-existence is possible. In which case why are we talking about god in the first place? It wouldn't make any difference if he existed or not.

The one possible difference that the existence of such a God might have is if one believes that we possess a soul which persists after we die, in which case such a God might be responsible for rewarding/punishing us after death.

I don't find it non-skeptical to say that there probably are no gods because there is no plausible reason to think there is a god and the reasons given by believers are explainable without recourse to some supernatural being.

The key word to understanding the logic here is "probably." Is it really possible to determine the probability of there being no gods based on a lack of evidence for gods? Just as an example, it is possible that an all-powerful being has a reason to not want us to know if its existence. How can we determine the probability that such a being exists or doesn't exist?

As for the reasoning that everything can be explained without recourse to some supernatural being, there is plenty that is currently unexplained by science and whether or not things are explainable doesn't really answer the question of whether or not there is a god. Finally, the logic you've suggested could just as easily apply to the opposite belief: there is probably a god because there is no plausible reason to think that there are no gods.

I was wondering: what other things are we agnostic about according to definition 1?

At the very least, we are probably agnostic about things we are ignorant about. But the nature of human beings is to have an opinion about things we have some information about, even if we don't have conclusive evidence. So some would argue that position 1 is actually not possible if we have even a little knowledge of the subject. That said, one can be more or less certain of the truth of their opinions, so I think people who have a weak opinion about the existence or non-existence of gods can still reasonably call themselves agnostics.

Yes I think he must be able to hold opinions without conclusive evidence. There are various matters where not conclusive evidence exists and opinions can be held as long as they are known to be opinions and not facts.

Then we are in agreement. That was really the sole point I was making. I just don't think that you can eliminate theists from being skeptics as long as they admit that their belief in God is not fact. And annoying as it may seem, the Christian use of the word "faith" indicates that most Christians don't think their beliefs are provable fact.

I guess I am suggesting that in that case. Does it prove that or just that hard atheists are not being skeptical in respect to their active belief there is no god and that the more active that belief is, the less skeptical they are being.

I think the implication would be that where there is a lack of conclusive evidence, the stronger one's beliefs (the more certain one is that one's beliefs are true), the less of a skeptic one would be. That would be reasonable since certainty of the truth a given proposition should be proportional to the strength of available evidence that supports it. But it would have to apply in both directions, and there is very little evidence for the existence or non-existence of gods.

I must say this has been interesting and educational to me.

Me too! Thanks for the discussion!

-Bri

[CFLarsen]

I must disagree. For example, subjective individual evidence is what doctors use to diagnose illnesses. It's not considered as good as a well established lab test, but there are many diseases for which no lab test is available. Doctors have to rely on the subjective individual evidence that their patients report. Surely you would not claim that the internal experiences (symptoms) a patient reports do not qualify as evidence?

Whoopsie.

What you forget is that doctors base what you call subjective individual evidence on the vast body of evidence collated from countless of experiments and the experience of other doctors.










Did I say "whoopsie"?

[Beth]

Whoopsie.

What you forget is that doctors base what you call subjective individual evidence on the vast body of evidence collated from countless of experiments and the experience of other doctors.
Did I say "whoopsie"?

Yes you did. And it applies to what you said.

Doctors base their diagnosis on the interpretation of a 'vast body of evidence collated from countless of experiments and the experience of other doctors' (which in many cases is nothing more than the compilation of the subjective individual evidence of many people) applied to the subjective individual evidence supplied by a particular patient. If they didn't regard the experience related by individuals, including their patients, as evidence they would have no basis to make a diagnosis - any diagnosis.

"You haven't been feeling well lately Mrs. Clarkson? What seems to be the problem?" This is their way of collecting my personal subjective experience as evidence.

"So you've been experiencing bouts of depression, hot flashes, night sweats and difficulty sleeping. These are common problems experienced by women your age. I think I know what your problem is." This is their way of utilizing the subjective personal evidence provided by many other individiduals to make a diagnosis.

"I'm going to order a blood test to confirm my diagnosis". This is the doctor now turning to objective tests to confirm their initial diagnosis which was based on the subjective evidence. The use of subjective individual evidence is very much a part of modern medicine and I doubt it will ever go away. There are many symptoms important to making an accurate diagnosis simply have no objective tests or other method to ascertain that the patient has actually been experiencing what they report having experienced.

[Bri]

If God were to speak to someone directly, in light of an absence of evidence that they were insane, they might then believe that God existed. Wouldn't that qualify as subjective individual evidence?

-Bri

[Beth]

If God were to speak to someone directly, in light of an absence of evidence that they were insane, they might then believe that God existed. Wouldn't that qualify as subjective individual evidence?

-Bri


I think so, but then, I think we're on agreement in this thread. I suspect that others here would simply say that if God spoke to them directly, they would take that as evidence they were insane, not evidence for the existance of God.

[Bri]

"Subjective individual evidence" is an oxymoron. That's the flaw in that line of thinking.

According to Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Subjective), one definition of "subjective" is:

4 a (1): peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> — compare OBJECTIVE 1c

"Subjective individual evidence" may be redundant, but I'm not sure it's an oxymoron. If "individual evidence" is evidence that it only available to one person, then isn't such evidence by definition subjective?

What you forget is that doctors base what you call subjective individual evidence on the vast body of evidence collated from countless of experiments and the experience of other doctors.

Webster would also seem to agree with Beth regarding subjective symptoms of disease (see definition 4c above). Your statement that a diagnosis is based on a large number of people experiencing similar subjective symptoms of a disease doesn't really help your case since the same can be said of the experiences associated with belief in gods.

-Bri

[CFLarsen]

Doctors base their diagnosis on the interpretation of a 'vast body of evidence collated from countless of experiments and the experience of other doctors' (which in many cases is nothing more than the compilation of the subjective individual evidence of many people) applied to the subjective individual evidence supplied by a particular patient. If they didn't regard the experience related by individuals, including their patients, as evidence they would have no basis to make a diagnosis - any diagnosis.

What is the difference between this, and what astrologers do?

[NeilC]

I think so, but then, I think we're on agreement in this thread. I suspect that others here would simply say that if God spoke to them directly, they would take that as evidence they were insane, not evidence for the existance of God.

But then you woudn't know it was god. I think if I heard voices in my head I guess I would be a bit worried I was going mad but if it continued and I had no other symptoms I'd have to start considering other possibilities. I'm not sure how quickly god would crop up as the source but sooner than my atheistic side would like I suspect.

[NeilC]

What is the difference between this, and what astrologers do?

There is a heck of a difference.

I don't agree with Beth's assertion that is what doctors do. The symptoms shown by patients have scientific explanations and reasons. Although a doctor must use his own judgement in real-world cases, he is using the science as well as he can. That underlying science is not just subjective.

I'm guessing that if they keep seeing symptoms not in the books they investigate and maybe report this to others.

Astrologers base their predictions on nothing known to be remotely accurate in the first place.

[voidx]

I'm guessing that most theists would object to your characterization of their beliefs as a "God of the gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)." Most theists I know don't believe that anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, that the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature. Rather, they tend to believe that God created nature itself, just as it is.

Which falls under my categorization of God as the Laws of Physics or Nature. Its an unfounded assumption based on faith. It is quite clearly in my opinion an attempt to remove the contradictions of Science by simply stating that God created the foundations of nature and science. Now Science isn't a problem, cuz God made it. Its frankly rather disingenious.


Again, I would say that most theists believe that science simply uncovers facts about nature as created by God. And yes, that conception of God might exist -- not in the gaps but outside of nature itself.

See there's a disconnect here however. They believe that science uncovers facts of nature as created by God. A conception of God that may exist. Again, to me, this is clearly a conceptual wrapper to bring the laws of nature as discovered by science, into the fold. All we have are the scientific facts of observed and discovered nature. To say they are just constructs of God, which God?, well this God conception that we happen to believe in, is circular.


I think your argument here is that people only believe in God because of internal experiences, and since internal experiences may not be real or may be incomplete that's no reason to believe in God.

I'd be interested in having someone convince me otherwise. People believe in God, because of a faith affirming experience. Over time these experiences have supposedly taken many forms. In times past they would be outright miracles, displays of power by an active agent God. But they were also tied to internal experiences, direct internal contact and experience of God. Over time the miracles have fallen by the way side because there is a vast array of mundane explanations to describe them. So we're left with internal experience.

I didn't say it was a reason not to believe in God. I think its the over-riding reason why people do. What I am saying, is that anyone that is openly honest about being skeptical of all their beliefs, all their experiences, must take the facts about the tricks and illusions and gaps in our conscious experience as casting doubt on whether or not their faith affirming internal experiences are in fact an experience of God, or just some random mundane experience, which we use to bootstrap a cultural belief into affirmation of some conception of God.


Of course people's internal experiences are "suspect." But when it comes down to it, all we have are our internal experiences. We may very well live in a simulation (http://www.simulation-argument.com/) or the universe might only be a figment of our imagination. But I see no reason to necessarily assume solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) just because our internal experiences are "suspect." Indeed, it would be nonsense to live our lives as though nothing were real.

I never implied anything regarding solipsism, so I'm unclear as to why you've gone off in that direction. Solipsism is very much logically incoherent. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone subscribing to it. Its simply to self-contradictory. I think we're justified in assuming the independant existence of other internal agents within other people.

I do not bring up our suspect experiences as an argument towards solipsism. I merely bring it up to rightly point out that our consciousness is at times inadequate at determining the source or cause of conscious experience. That we experience a macro version, an abstracted fiction of the vast amounts of input our senses are subjected too. That you believe that a particular experience was an affirming connection or experience with God, isn't really all that reliable. How can you discount that it wasn't in fact just a random mundane experience? You in fact cannot. And that shold raise doubts. Doubts that are often painted over by faith.


There is a difference (in my opinion) between having no logical or rational basis for the belief that God exists and the belief in an incoherent or illogical God. I believe the former simply represents an acknowledgment by theists that their belief in God is based on faith rather than fact, and an acknowledgment that their belief in God differs from their belief in, say, gnomes and faeries where the default position is usually non-belief in the absence of conclusive evidence. However, I would not equate those acknowledgments with admitting that their concept of God is logically incoherent. In addition, we all take these sorts of "leaps of faith" by having opinions on a variety of subjects despite a lack of conclusive evidence.

But how can you differentiate between the two? A person who has a belief, and as such likely an affirming experience which cements that belief prove that their experience is any more special than someone who believes they've had an affirming experience for the existence of gnomes or faeries? Both can find other adherents to their belief, and make them fit. Descriptions and conceptions of both, in my opinion, are shaped by culture

I think most modern conceptions of God are so vague that there really isn't much of a framework to call illogical. They take the proven logic and explanatory power of science and the laws of the universe as they are today and attempt to tape God onto it by saying he created them or IS them. Where the illogic comes in is the same areas by which science is currently unsure. What was the initial cause of the creation of the universe? Science has theories, based on its existing framework. A belief in God by necessity would have to imply that it simply was created from nothing, or rather God. At which point it must be asked, in what sense did God exist prior to the creation of the universe, which is where things become incoherent.

I believe theories that this in fact is not the only universe, that there is a vast infinity of different universes with different laws of physics, gives us some insight into the creation of the universe. It doesn't eliminate the question, it merely pushes it back, so that now we're asking, is space and time and all the multitude of universes within it truly infinite? Was there ever an actual start, and will there ever be an actual finish? Theists are certainly welcome to continue inserting this framework as created by God, or that it IS God. But it doesn't help explain anything. Its an assumption based on faith, based on internal experiences, which one should be suspect of.

[Beth]

There is a heck of a difference.

I don't agree with Beth's assertion that is what doctors do. The symptoms shown by patients have scientific explanations and reasons. Although a doctor must use his own judgement in real-world cases, he is using the science as well as he can. That underlying science is not just subjective.

I'm guessing that if they keep seeing symptoms not in the books they investigate and maybe report this to others.

Astrologers base their predictions on nothing known to be remotely accurate in the first place.

I'm not saying that the only evidence doctors base their diagnosis on is personal subjective experience. I'm using doctors to provide a counterexample to the claim that subjective personal experience doesn't qualify as evidence. You can say that it isn't as worthwhile as objective evidence, that's fine. I'm quite glad my doctor runs confirmatory blood tests, when they are available, rather than just presume their diagnosis based on the subjective evidence available is correct.

But I know should better than to respond to Larsen's posts. Sorry. I'll try not to let it happen again.

[Bri]

Which falls under my categorization of God as the Laws of Physics or Nature. Its an unfounded assumption based on faith.

Of course it is based on faith. I think that the vast majority of believers admit that their beliefs are based on faith rather than fact.

It is quite clearly in my opinion an attempt to remove the contradictions of Science by simply stating that God created the foundations of nature and science. Now Science isn't a problem, cuz God made it. Its frankly rather disingenious.

Disingenuous how?

See there's a disconnect here however. They believe that science uncovers facts of nature as created by God. A conception of God that may exist. Again, to me, this is clearly a conceptual wrapper to bring the laws of nature as discovered by science, into the fold. All we have are the scientific facts of observed and discovered nature. To say they are just constructs of God, which God?, well this God conception that we happen to believe in, is circular.

I don't think that anyone is arguing against the fact that there's little (if any) evidence to support the belief. I was just saying that it's possible that their beliefs are right. There is also little (if any) evidence to support the belief that there are no gods.

I'd be interested in having someone convince me otherwise.

If you'll only believe something based on evidence, it would be difficult to convince you that there is a God. It should also be difficult to convince you that there are no gods.

What I am saying, is that anyone that is openly honest about being skeptical of all their beliefs, all their experiences, must take the facts about the tricks and illusions and gaps in our conscious experience as casting doubt on whether or not their faith affirming internal experiences are in fact an experience of God, or just some random mundane experience, which we use to bootstrap a cultural belief into affirmation of some conception of God.

I have had a discussion with at least one person on this forum who believes that God once spoke to him directly. What do you say to that, exactly? This person doesn't appear to be insane otherwise. He also readily admitted that he wouldn't necessarily believe someone else who told him that God has spoken to them. So, sure, some people believe in God based on something they experienced directly, and others based on the experience of someone else. Most of them admit that they might be wrong, and most of them admit that their own experience by no means constitutes objective evidence.

I never implied anything regarding solipsism, so I'm unclear as to why you've gone off in that direction. Solipsism is very much logically incoherent.

Solipsism is not incoherent. You said that personal experiences that lead people to believe in the existence of God are "suspect." Solipsism just takes that concept to the extreme and suggests that it is possible that all experiences are "suspect."

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone subscribing to it. Its simply to self-contradictory.

I agree with the first sentence, and disagree with the second. Few people subscribe to it because it is of limited utility. However, it is not incoherent or self-contradictory, nor is it impossible.

I think we're justified in assuming the independant existence of other internal agents within other people.

I agree, but again being justified in making the opposite assumption doesn't mean that a concept is self-contradictory.

That you believe that a particular experience was an affirming connection or experience with God, isn't really all that reliable. How can you discount that it wasn't in fact just a random mundane experience? You in fact cannot. And that shold raise doubts. Doubts that are often painted over by faith.

To be clear, I've never personally had such an experience. Such experiences may very well be unreliable. Certainly to me (who has never had one) they are unreliable. However, I imagine that if you were to have such an experience and there was no other reason for you to suspect that you are insane, you might also be inclined to believe your own experiences over someone else's theory.

You say that faith "paints over" doubt, but I would argue that the term "faith" is an expression of doubt. They don't call belief in God a fact-based belief, do they?

But how can you differentiate between the two?

The difference is between something that might exist and something that is logically impossible (and therefore cannot possibly exist). How can we tell which category God or gnomes fall under? We can only look at a particular concept and see if it is logically self-contradictory. If it can't be proven to be self-contradictory (and most modern conceptions of God aren't obviously self-contradictory) you are, unfortunately, back to square one. It might exist, and it might not exist.

I think most modern conceptions of God are so vague that there really isn't much of a framework to call illogical.

There have been attempts to disprove certain conceptions of God by showing certain attributes to contradict one another. For example, the Problem of Evil tries to show that a benevolent and omnipotent God cannot exist in light of the existence of evil in the world. But I haven't seen an argument of this type that conclusively disproves any common conception of God.

They take the proven logic and explanatory power of science and the laws of the universe as they are today and attempt to tape God onto it by saying he created them or IS them. Where the illogic comes in is the same areas by which science is currently unsure. What was the initial cause of the creation of the universe? Science has theories, based on its existing framework. A belief in God by necessity would have to imply that it simply was created from nothing, or rather God. At which point it must be asked, in what sense did God exist prior to the creation of the universe, which is where things become incoherent.

I agree that it is flawed reasoning to believe in God only to answer the question "what created the universe?" The same reasoning that demands that the universe must have been created would also require that God must have been created. So, yes, those arguments are only adding a new (and unnecessary) layer to the question. However, I'm guessing that most Christians have other reasons for belief in God than that they prefer "God created the universe (but I don't know who created God)" to "I don't know who created the universe".

Theists are certainly welcome to continue inserting this framework as created by God, or that it IS God. But it doesn't help explain anything. Its an assumption based on faith, based on internal experiences, which one should be suspect of.

I agree. I suspect that most theists also agree.

-Bri

[voidx]

Disingenuous how?

To claim that the laws of nature are God or were created by God. There's no logical justification for doing so. Except for, well, making it up.


I don't think that anyone is arguing against the fact that there's little (if any) evidence to support the belief. I was just saying that it's possible that their beliefs are right. There is also little (if any) evidence to support the belief that there are no gods.

Showing that there are no gods or cannot be any gods isn't strictly necessary in my opinion. We operate on what we can objectively know. I don't need to show the impossibility of No Gods because I don't even know what that would mean. Its upon people positing God to show how it objectively has some form of explanatory power in the universe, aside from just claiming the laws of nature and physics to be God.


If you'll only believe something based on evidence, it would be difficult to convince you that there is a God. It should also be difficult to convince you that there are no gods.

I'd settle for even a logically consistent framework of how God operates within the observable universe. Because, if we're being honest, everything else is pure conjecture.


I have had a discussion with at least one person on this forum who believes that God once spoke to him directly. What do you say to that, exactly? This person doesn't appear to be insane otherwise. He also readily admitted that he wouldn't necessarily believe someone else who told him that God has spoken to them.

I'd say that I very much believe that he believes his experience to be true. My main question is what precisely about the experience in question lead directly to the attribution of a particular conception of God. Was it the Agent-type God of Christian faith? Was it the God as Laws of Nature type God? How precisely did he make the leap from internal experience, to affirmation of God? I've a suspicion he likely won't know. Aside from feeling it was true, that it was God. Where did the conception of God come from that he identified with? Was it a conception likely acquired through cultural learning? If he grew up in complete isolation, with no conceptions of God, would he have made the connection? Would it have been the same?


Solipsism is not incoherent. You said that personal experiences that lead people to believe in the existence of God are "suspect." Solipsism just takes that concept to the extreme and suggests that it is possible that all experiences are "suspect."

I take back my comment that it is incoherent. But it certainly has very little use as an explanatory concept. I think there are major problems with the base assumptions it makes.


To be clear, I've never personally had such an experience. Such experiences may very well be unreliable. Certainly to me (who has never had one) they are unreliable. However, I imagine that if you were to have such an experience and there was no other reason for you to suspect that you are insane, you might also be inclined to believe your own experiences over someone else's theory.

Nor have I. The key here is no other reason, that you are aware of. I'm freely aware of my own ignorance of even the known laws of the universe, and of the limits of our knowledge concerning human cognition and experience and psychology. Because of those I'd have trouble making any logical leap to belief, full belief.


You say that faith "paints over" doubt, but I would argue that the term "faith" is an expression of doubt. They don't call belief in God a fact-based belief, do they?

I'd entirely disagree. To me, the very definition of taking something on faith is to have no doubts about it. To believe it in the face of doubt and lack of evidence. Do you think most people with a strong affirmed belief in God believe they are wrong? Or harbour any doubt? If the proclamation of faith is honest and sincere, then I don't see how they could. I realize this may not actually apply to many modern day moderate theists. But it then begs the question, what is the major justification for the belief in God, if not a firm faith in the belief of God. Social pressures habits? Tradition? Belief in the social benefits of said religion and so hence an assumed belief in the God of that religion?


It might exist, and it might not exist.

I think we agree on many points. But to me, I find it hard to swallow that religion and belief in conceptions of God would be so overwhelmingly prevalent in human culture, if people were taking it on the basis of "might exist". People, in my opinion, either believe completely in a conception of God, based on some affirming personal experience, or believe in the "belief in God" which usually entails all the moral and social trappings of said local religion along with a vague'ish conception of God that's open for debate.


There have been attempts to disprove certain conceptions of God by showing certain attributes to contradict one another. For example, the Problem of Evil tries to show that a benevolent and omnipotent God cannot exist in light of the existence of evil in the world. But I haven't seen an argument of this type that conclusively disproves any common conception of God.

I personally don't see this as a very useful pursuit. I think most conceptions of God are too much in the realm of the metaphysical to even attempt a logical disproving of.


I agree. I suspect that most theists also agree.

So then, what's the justification for it, in their mind? What causes them to hold it in the realm of possibility, aside from the fact that no one can seemingly disprove it logically (which isn't really necessary in my opinion), and the fact that it seems like a nice idea?

[CFLarsen]

There is a heck of a difference.

I don't agree with Beth's assertion that is what doctors do. The symptoms shown by patients have scientific explanations and reasons. Although a doctor must use his own judgement in real-world cases, he is using the science as well as he can. That underlying science is not just subjective.

I'm guessing that if they keep seeing symptoms not in the books they investigate and maybe report this to others.

Astrologers base their predictions on nothing known to be remotely accurate in the first place.

Absolutely agree.

I'm not saying that the only evidence doctors base their diagnosis on is personal subjective experience. I'm using doctors to provide a counterexample to the claim that subjective personal experience doesn't qualify as evidence. You can say that it isn't as worthwhile as objective evidence, that's fine. I'm quite glad my doctor runs confirmatory blood tests, when they are available, rather than just presume their diagnosis based on the subjective evidence available is correct.

It only qualifies as evidence because it is held up against already confirmed data. When a doctor sees a patients with flu symptoms, and knows there's an epidemic going on, he doesn't use personal subjective experience. He holds the data from these patients up against what he has learned about flu and how common it is at the moment.

But I know should better than to respond to Larsen's posts. Sorry. I'll try not to let it happen again.

You are basing that on subjective personal experience only? ;)

[Bri]

To claim that the laws of nature are God or were created by God. There's no logical justification for doing so. Except for, well, making it up.

As far as I know, Christianity and Judaism have always claimed that God created the universe and the laws of nature. Nothing new there. Of course there's no evidence of it, but there's no evidence of anything theists believe. I'm not sure how that makes it disingenuous.

Showing that there are no gods or cannot be any gods isn't strictly necessary in my opinion.

It is necessary if you don't hold beliefs without evidence. Otherwise, I see no basis for the claim that theists aren't skeptical while strong atheists are skeptical. Strong atheists are making a claim without any evidence, which is exactly the objection you seem to have about theists.

We operate on what we can objectively know. I don't need to show the impossibility of No Gods because I don't even know what that would mean. Its upon people positing God to show how it objectively has some form of explanatory power in the universe, aside from just claiming the laws of nature and physics to be God.

If you don't hold beliefs without evidence, then until theists or strong atheists provide compelling evidence for their position you would have to have no belief whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of gods. If you have a belief that there are no gods, then you would have a belief without evidence, which seems to be the problem you have with the belief that there is a god.

I'd settle for even a logically consistent framework of how God operates within the observable universe. Because, if we're being honest, everything else is pure conjecture.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "logically consistent framework of how God operates within the observable universe." It sounds as though you require full knowledge of how God works in order to believe God exists. Yet even science doesn't have full knowledge of how gravity works, yet we believe it exists.

Of course it's conjecture -- that's why they call it a faith-based belief rather than a fact-based belief. Of course, the belief that there are no gods is also conjecture.

I'd say that I very much believe that he believes his experience to be true. My main question is what precisely about the experience in question lead directly to the attribution of a particular conception of God. Was it the Agent-type God of Christian faith? Was it the God as Laws of Nature type God? How precisely did he make the leap from internal experience, to affirmation of God? I've a suspicion he likely won't know. Aside from feeling it was true, that it was God. Where did the conception of God come from that he identified with? Was it a conception likely acquired through cultural learning? If he grew up in complete isolation, with no conceptions of God, would he have made the connection? Would it have been the same?

From his perspective, God was speaking to him in the context of what he already believed to be true. As he sees it, if he had believed something that wasn't true, God would have either corrected him or else wouldn't have spoken to him at all.

Nor have I. The key here is no other reason, that you are aware of. I'm freely aware of my own ignorance of even the known laws of the universe, and of the limits of our knowledge concerning human cognition and experience and psychology. Because of those I'd have trouble making any logical leap to belief, full belief.

Of course that you are aware of. Every single belief you have is based on either pure conjecture, or based on the evidence that you are aware of.

I think that perhaps the problem is that you are equating "belief" with "knowledge." Remember that belief covers the whole range from impression to opinion to actual knowledge. One can have a belief about something while admitting that they don't know for sure -- that's what an "opinion" is.

I'd entirely disagree. To me, the very definition of taking something on faith is to have no doubts about it. To believe it in the face of doubt and lack of evidence.

I know plenty of theists who believe in God based on faith, and fully understand that their belief is not based on evidence and that they might therefore be wrong. In fact, I know of nobody who claims to know for an absolute fact that God exists (unless they are misusing the term "fact" to mean a strong belief). The closest would be someone to whom God has spoken directly, but even they must admit that there is a possibility that they were somehow mistaken.

Note that the belief that there are no gods is also an opinion -- a belief in the face of doubt and lack of evidence.

Belief in the face of doubt and lack of evidence is called an opinion. I'm guessing that you have a few yourself.

Do you think most people with a strong affirmed belief in God believe they are wrong? Or harbour any doubt?

Believe they are wrong, no. Harbor doubt, yes. By "harbor doubt" I mean that they understand that their belief isn't based on actual evidence and that it is possible that they are wrong. I imagine it's the same sort of doubt that a strong atheist has towards the belief that there are no gods.

If the proclamation of faith is honest and sincere, then I don't see how they could. I realize this may not actually apply to many modern day moderate theists.

But modern day moderate theists are exactly what we're talking about. The nutcases are the vast minority. The question was whether or not a theist can be a skeptic, and whether the JREF should be an atheist organization.

I think we agree on many points.

Yes, we do. The more you explain, the more I think we're probably just splitting hairs here.

But to me, I find it hard to swallow that religion and belief in conceptions of God would be so overwhelmingly prevalent in human culture, if people were taking it on the basis of "might exist".

Rather than phrasing it "God might exist," I think theists would be more apt to phrase it as "God might not exist." Either way, I think the majority of theists admit that their belief is not based on objective evidence, and that is pretty much what they mean when they say that their belief is based on faith.

I personally don't see this as a very useful pursuit. I think most conceptions of God are too much in the realm of the metaphysical to even attempt a logical disproving of.

Oh, I agree. But nonetheless every month or two there is a thread that pops up on this forum about the Problem of Evil, usually linking to a posting of some horrible event that has occurred and asking how a good and all-powerful God allowed it to happen and didn't prevent it.

So then, what's the justification for it, in their mind? What causes them to hold it in the realm of possibility, aside from the fact that no one can seemingly disprove it logically (which isn't really necessary in my opinion), and the fact that it seems like a nice idea?

I'm not sure "realm of possibility" is the phrase you had in mind here. Most atheists also hold the existence of God in the realm of possibility. You're asking me what causes theists to come to the conclusion that God exists rather than the conclusion that God doesn't exist despite the lack of evidence either way.

Many will say that they (or someone they know) have had an experience that led them to that conclusion, but I imagine that the reasons for coming to that conclusion differ from person to person. The point is that it's not necessarily un-skeptical to come to that conclusion rather than the opposite conclusion given the lack of evidence either way, as long as one understands that their belief is opinion rather than fact.

-Bri

[NeilC]

So it's not unskeptical to come to the view that say, the christian god exists (let's limit his interaction to listening to and acting on prayer, supplying judgement and heaven, being omniscient and omnipotent), despite the lack of convincing evidence?

[Bri]

Not unless it's also unskeptical to believe that no gods exist or that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system despite the lack of convincing evidence.

-Bri

[voidx]

The logic of theism and its associated skeptical merits does not hinge on the theory of strong atheism. It stands on its own merits. And given that, I think Splossy's question is certainly relevant.

If the belief is hindered with doubts and a lack of convincing evidence, how is it not seen to be unskeptical? Stating its an opinion is kind of a get out of jail free card don't you think?

For the record I agree that its also not logical to out-right state there are no Gods. I believe its unnecessary to do so for those looking at an objective view of the universe, at least at this point in time, with our current understands and framework. That and the fact that most conceptions of God don't lend themselves to any logical disproving from an objective stand point also makes it impossible to say Gods are not possible. So given I think it is unskeptical to outwardly state there are no Gods, does that then mean we agree that its also unskeptical to say there are any Gods, and hence any belief in any of those Gods is also unskeptical at this point, or rather wishful thinking, or unfounded opinion?

I do plan on responding to your last post by the way. I think the discussion has been pretty interesting so far.

[Bri]

The logic of theism and its associated skeptical merits does not hinge on the theory of strong atheism. It stands on its own merits. And given that, I think Splossy's question is certainly relevant.

Yes Splossy's question is relevant, and I answered it. If you want to define "skepticism" in such a way that a theist cannot be a skeptic, you would also preclude a strong atheist from being a skeptic. You simply cannot exclude one without excluding the other. For that matter, you would also exclude anyone who has an opinion on any topic from being a skeptic. I'm guessing you have opinions yourself, don't you?

If the belief is hindered with doubts and a lack of convincing evidence, how is it not seen to be unskeptical? Stating its an opinion is kind of a get out of jail free card don't you think?

No, having an opinion is not a "get out of jail free card" as long as one admits that it's only an opinion. Do you know anyone who doesn't have an opinion about nearly every topic for which there is no conclusive evidence?

For the record I agree that its also not logical to out-right state there are no Gods. I believe its unnecessary to do so for those looking at an objective view of the universe, at least at this point in time, with our current understands and framework. That and the fact that most conceptions of God don't lend themselves to any logical disproving from an objective stand point also makes it impossible to say Gods are not possible.

Personally, I think skeptics can have opinions. The only people I can think of that could be skeptics under your definition are people who are entirely ignorant of the topic (and therefore don't have opinions). So only people who are entirely ignorant can be skeptics? It's consistent at least, but seems to preclude nearly everyone from being a skeptic.

So given I think it is unskeptical to outwardly state there are no Gods, does that then mean we agree that its also unskeptical to say there are any Gods, and hence any belief in any of those Gods is also unskeptical at this point, or rather wishful thinking, or unfounded opinion?

No, I disagree with your definition, but at least it now seems to be consistent in that you've managed to eliminate everyone with an opinion from being a skeptic.

You realize that the text in bold signifies an opinion, right? Since there's no conclusive evidence that it is unskeptical to have an opinion, that means you're not being skeptical with your definition, doesn't it?

I do plan on responding to your last post by the way. I think the discussion has been pretty interesting so far.

I agree, and look forward to your response!

-Bri

[Beth]

If the belief is hindered with doubts and a lack of convincing evidence, how is it not seen to be unskeptical? Stating its an opinion is kind of a get out of jail free card don't you think? So if I am of the opinion that no god exists, that's a perfectly skeptical conclusion, but if I am of the opinion that a god exists, that is not? That is the impression I get from you (and others) who are arguing the stance that atheism is the only skeptical conclusion that anyone can reasonably arrive at. Is that an accurate restatement or have I misunderstood your posts?

[Bri]

Now, Beth, that's unfair! I think voidx has said in his latest post that a skeptic can't have an opinion at all. Not very practical since it eliminates just about everyone, but at least it's consistent!

-Bri

[NeilC]

Not unless it's also unskeptical to believe that no gods exist or that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system despite the lack of convincing evidence.

-Bri

I can see how this works in a logical argument, but from from a common sense point of view it doesn't sit well with me at all.

On one hand you have someone with no evidence of god saying he does not believe in the existence of a god and furthermore believes this god not to exist. This god has far-reaching consequences. His answering of prayers etc would appear to break the laws of physics. His supposed prescence doesn't seem to me to make the world easier or simpler to understand and it raises lots more questions that can't be answered other than by his existence. Believing this god not to exist is a small step from not believing he exists.

On the other you have someone also with no evidence this god exists but still choosing to believe it.

Those two things to do not seem equivalent other than in a narrow deductive logical argument.

If they are then surely it would also not be skeptical to believe that, say, your house is a solid object that exists outside of your mind and persists when you are not around to perceive it. You have no conclusive evidence that anything exists outside of your mind. It is logically impossible for you to have such evidence since everything you perceive is via the senses and various processing mechanisms. Everything could be a dream.

So is to believe in an objective reality or even the seperate existence of matter also non skeptical?

[NeilC]

Bri: what is your preferred definition of a skeptic

[Bri]

Bri: what is your preferred definition of a skeptic

One who questions one's beliefs. I think it's impossible to be more specific than that.

-Bri

[articulett]

I don't. I think of a skeptic who would rather not know something than believe a lie. I think of a skeptic who cares whether their most influential beliefs are true and aims to understand more and more truth that is the same for everybody-- and share that truth, like Randi. I think most skeptics are interested in the ways people fool themselves and are wary of people making claims of faith as though it were fact and the way it leads to a weird kind of confirmation bias and judgment of those who don't prop up or defer to your belief. I don't think a skeptic needs to be an atheist. But why talk about your faith on a skeptics forum as though it made you better or was good for something without evidence of such. Why care if people don't believe in the thing that you feel is good to believe in. If something is true, it doesn't stop being true because people don't believe in it.

I think faith often makes people arrogant and judgmental and a bit daft without being aware of any of that... it closes off the learning that they may be fooling themselves... and they seem to demand a deference to that faith while having a knee jerk judgment of non-believers. I think faith plants this reaction as a means of keeping itself alive.

To me, many believers believe because they were indoctrinated young and told that faith is good for something... necessary for morality... necessary for happiness.... by people they love and trust who probably believe it too. But then it becomes necessary. And the bottom line is-- if you think your faith is true, by definition, other faiths are false. You understand that other people believe false thinks (Greek Mythology, Scientology), but you don't apply that skepticism to your own faith.

I respect a person who say they believe because it gives them comfort. I don't respect people who need to assert their faith and cast aspersions as a means of propping up that faith or pretend that it's rational to believe things for which there is no evidence.

[Bri]

I can see how this works in a logical argument, but from from a common sense point of view it doesn't sit well with me at all.

I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, on any topic where there's little or no evidence one way or another I'm not sure you can come up with a rule that would allow someone to have an opinion one way but not the other.

His answering of prayers etc would appear to break the laws of physics. His supposed prescence doesn't seem to me to make the world easier or simpler to understand and it raises lots more questions that can't be answered other than by his existence.

We can't really define "skeptic" by saying that a skeptic cannot believe something that breaks the laws of physics. The laws of physics are simply observations, and if something were to break the laws of physics, it would simply mean that the laws of physics would need to be modified. Not so long ago, some peculiar behavior of light was found to break the known laws of physics. That discovery led to quantum theory which essentially rewrote the laws of physics at the subatomic level.

Believing this god not to exist is a small step from not believing he exists.

The two are fundamentally different though. Having no belief that God exists also implies that you have no belief that God doesn't exist. So pure agnosticism would be about the same step from either belief that God doesn't exist or belief that God does exist.

Those two things to do not seem equivalent other than in a narrow deductive logical argument.

They're not equivalent, you're right. They're two completely different opinions based on the same (lack of) available evidence. I think that as long as one understands the available evidence and questions it, one can be a skeptic regardless of which opinion one has. I'm not sure it is possible to include one and exclude the other.

If they are then surely it would also not be skeptical to believe that, say, your house is a solid object that exists outside of your mind and persists when you are not around to perceive it. You have no conclusive evidence that anything exists outside of your mind. It is logically impossible for you to have such evidence since everything you perceive is via the senses and various processing mechanisms. Everything could be a dream.

Whether or not the universe is real or a figment of your imagination (as with solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism)) would also be a matter of opinion. There is little evidence for or against solipsism (other than our individual feeling that our world is real), I don't think it is non-skeptical to have an opinion one way or another.

So is to believe in an objective reality or even the seperate existence of matter also non skeptical?

Possibly, according to your definition. But not according to mine.

-Bri

[Bri]

I think of a skeptic who would rather not know something than believe a lie.

Of course a skeptic cannot believe something that the evidence is clearly against, but we're talking about things for which there is no conclusive evidence. Admitting that you don't know something for certain and having a belief about it are not mutually exclusive. I think you agree that a skeptic can have opinions.

I think of a skeptic who cares whether their most influential beliefs are true and aims to understand more and more truth that is the same for everybody-- and share that truth, like Randi. I think most skeptics are interested in the ways people fool themselves and are wary of people making claims of faith as though it were fact and the way it leads to a weird kind of confirmation bias and judgment of those who don't prop up or defer to your belief. I don't think a skeptic needs to be an atheist.

I agree. But I think "one who questions one's belief" is much more succinct. I should have been more clear about what I meant when I said that I don't think we can be more specific than that. I just meant that I don't think we can narrow down specifically who can be a skeptic and who cannot be a skeptic other than to say that perhaps one who believes something despite clear evidence to the contrary is not skeptical in that belief.

But why talk about your faith on a skeptics forum as though it made you better or was good for something without evidence of such. Why care if people don't believe in the thing that you feel is good to believe in. If something is true, it doesn't stop being true because people don't believe in it.

I know a lot of theists, and the vast minority feel that they are better than those who believe differently than they do, or care that much if others believe as they do. And by the way, that attitude is not limited to theists. But I agree with you concerning the minority who do feel that way.

-Bri

[NeilC]

So we can't define a skeptic as someone who demands conclusive evidence of things before believing them because such evidence rarely exists, right from the existence of matter through to the existence of gods. Almost all knowledge is an opinion. We can only say that a skeptic must question his opinions (which we say are the same as beliefs). This allows questioning theists to be skeptics.

So I'm only left wondering how skeptical someone is. Do you think it a matter of how strong their beliefs are, how effectively they question their beliefs, and if they are prepared to alter their opinions after analysis or new evidence points to a new opinion?

I'm wondering if merely questioning one's beliefs is enough for the label to have any useful meaning. Say a religious suicide bomber is only happy to die because of his belief in a god and related afterlife. If he has a twinge of doubt about this before he sets his bomb off does that make him a skeptic in the sense we might use to to describe a former religious preacher who becomes an atheist after studying philosophy and it causing him to challenge his formerly deeply held beliefs?

[articulett]

Yes... If believers referred to their beliefs as "beliefs" or "opinions" that's fine... but they don't--they presume it's higher truth-- and that those who don't get it are ignorant of that truth. But reality shows that there is no evidence for divine truths or forces or any kind of consciousness outside a living brain (no gods, souls, demons, fairies, engrams, etc.) So the non believer has lots and lots of evidence that people delude themselves about these things for some time. We even understand why and how much of this happens. But even believers are away of this regarding other woo beliefs. So they are always being arrogant when they hold something to be true for which there is no more evidence than the beliefs they find crazy-- or the delusions of a schizophrenic.

Science is interested in knowing everything it can about the world--you'd think if an iota of this kind of thinking had any evidence for it, scientists would be refining that knowledge and assimilating it and learning what they could. But there is just nothing there. Consider Darwins theory-- he never saw a chromosome-- look where it has gone--we've mapped our own genomes and are building a library of the history of life on earth via the directions coded for in DNA--which proves Darwins' theory in living technicolor. What scriptural text as offered anything like that?

And I and other non-believers am appalled at this silly notion that just because there are two options (Zeus existed or he didn't) that both are equally likely to be true. They aren't. There are as many gods as there have been for people to imagine them... but there is only one reality that is the same for all people no matter what they believe. There is one truth. I am to find that kind of truth... and smarmy believer talk leaves me feeling manipulated and like they are the last people to have it.

You don't see believers as arrogant. I do. Inherently so. They have claims of special knowledge that no scientist can detect in any measurable way. That's arrogant. They claim, not only to know there is a god--but that they know what god wants. That is insanely arrogant. And scary. Faith proffereres seem to be promoting purposeful ignorance while feeling morally surperior from my perspective... and they never present any evidence to show otherwise.

[Bri]

So we can't define a skeptic as someone who demands conclusive evidence of things before believing them because such evidence rarely exists, right from the existence of matter through to the existence of gods. Almost all knowledge is an opinion. We can only say that a skeptic must question his opinions (which we say are the same as beliefs). This allows questioning theists to be skeptics.

It's true that absolutely conclusive evidence is rare. Maybe "conclusive" isn't the correct term here though, although it's the one I've been using. Maybe "significant" is a better term. The strength of evidence is often subjective, but I think that there is significantly stronger evidence for some opinions compared to the opposite opinions. For example, there is very significant evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. Of course, it might not. But I would say that because of the strength of the evidence, it would be less skeptical to believe that it won't than to believe that it will.

So I'm only left wondering how skeptical someone is. Do you think it a matter of how strong their beliefs are, how effectively they question their beliefs, and if they are prepared to alter their opinions after analysis or new evidence points to a new opinion?

I would say that skepticism has to do with all of those things. The strength of one's beliefs should be proportional to the strength of the evidence for that belief. My original thought was that that being willing to change one's beliefs based on new evidence is a part of being willing to question one's beliefs. But I'll concede that just questioning one's beliefs aren't enough -- one should also be prepared to look for and accept new evidence and to alter one's beliefs accordingly.

I'm wondering if merely questioning one's beliefs is enough for the label to have any useful meaning. Say a religious suicide bomber is only happy to die because of his belief in a god and related afterlife. If he has a twinge of doubt about this before he sets his bomb off does that make him a skeptic in the sense we might use to to describe a former religious preacher who becomes an atheist after studying philosophy and it causing him to challenge his formerly deeply held beliefs?

I would say that having the slightest twinge of doubt about one's beliefs might make one the slightest bit skeptical, but certainly not as much as someone who more rigorously questions his or her beliefs (and is willing to adjust those beliefs based on new evidence).

-Bri

[NeilC]

Ah - it seems my name change has happened whilst writing this! I was called Splossy (was something my toddler used to say).

Yes... If believers referred to their beliefs as "beliefs" or "opinions" that's fine... but they don't--they presume it's higher truth-- and that those who don't get it are ignorant of that truth. But reality shows that there is no evidence for divine truths or forces or any kind of consciousness outside a living brain (no gods, souls, demons, fairies, engrams, etc.) So the non believer has lots and lots of evidence that people delude themselves about these things for some time. We even understand why and how much of this happens. But even believers are away of this regarding other woo beliefs. So they are always being arrogant when they hold something to be true for which there is no more evidence than the beliefs they find crazy-- or the delusions of a schizophrenic.

Science is interested in knowing everything it can about the world--you'd think if an iota of this kind of thinking had any evidence for it, scientists would be refining that knowledge and assimilating it and learning what they could. But there is just nothing there. Consider Darwins theory-- he never saw a chromosome-- look where it has gone--we've mapped our own genomes and are building a library of the history of life on earth via the directions coded for in DNA--which proves Darwins' theory in living technicolor. What scriptural text as offered anything like that?

And I and other non-believers am appalled at this silly notion that just because there are two options (Zeus existed or he didn't) that both are equally likely to be true. They aren't. There are as many gods as there have been for people to imagine them... but there is only one reality that is the same for all people no matter what they believe. There is one truth. I am to find that kind of truth... and smarmy believer talk leaves me feeling manipulated and like they are the last people to have it.

You don't see believers as arrogant. I do. Inherently so. They have claims of special knowledge that no scientist can detect in any measurable way. That's arrogant. They claim, not only to know there is a god--but that they know what god wants. That is insanely arrogant. And scary. Faith proffereres seem to be promoting purposeful ignorance while feeling morally surperior from my perspective... and they never present any evidence to show otherwise.

There are different sorts of believers. In my personal life I've not come across many of the arrogantly faith-assured ones you describe. Most of my friends are fairly intelligent and the ones who believe in a god are not arrogant about it and have all sorts of doubts. They don't preach or even talk that much about their personal belief, but they will pray at a wedding or take communion if offered etc. They appear to sincerely believe in a god but all of them accept evolution and other sciences. I couldn't acuse them of being purposefully ignorant. I read about those other people and see them on TV but I've never met them. What has occured to me is that some of these people are brighter than me, are more switched on, more successful and seem very happy. I used to think their having such beliefs was stupid but maybe it isn't such a big leap of faith or such a degree of ignorance as I thought, especially when compared to the range of beliefs held in all manner of areas.

It reminds me of conversations I have with a Pakistani friend who tells me of the arab point of view of world events. Sitting at home it's easy to yell at the TV thinking "these people are nuts" but of course people are not just nuts, they just see things differently for reasons perfectly valid in context. No matter how even-minded I try to me (which isn't a strong point to be honest) he always catches me out in some Western assumption. BTW he is a hard drinking muslim-raised atheist who doesn't eat pork for some reason I'm yet to get to the bottom of.

This discussion, particularly with Bri, is leading me to wonder if I'm making similar judgements about theists in general.

Anyway, the discussion has really been about the ability to dismiss theists as not being capable of being called skeptics and it's definately got me thinking about my assumptions. Which of course makes me the very best kind of skeptic! ;-)

[Bri]

Yes... If believers referred to their beliefs as "beliefs" or "opinions" that's fine... but they don't--they presume it's higher truth-- and that those who don't get it are ignorant of that truth.

Maybe some do. But I think the majority refer to their beliefs as "beliefs" (or "faith-based beliefs") rather than facts.

But reality shows that there is no evidence for divine truths or forces or any kind of consciousness outside a living brain (no gods, souls, demons, fairies, engrams, etc.) So the non believer has lots and lots of evidence that people delude themselves about these things for some time. We even understand why and how much of this happens. But even believers are away of this regarding other woo beliefs. So they are always being arrogant when they hold something to be true for which there is no more evidence than the beliefs they find crazy-- or the delusions of a schizophrenic.

The most we can say is that not all conceptions of gods exist (given that presumably some of them contradict each other). But is there any evidence for the belief that no god exists?

The phrase "hold something to be true" is kind of loaded, because one can hold something provisionally to be true until further evidence is presented without claiming that it is absolute fact. You would have to really talk to a theist to determine whether or not their beliefs are "skeptical" or not, which will likely be determined not on the belief itself, but on how realistic they are concerning the strength of evidence for that belief (in other words, how close the belief is to opinion rather than fact).

Science is interested in knowing everything it can about the world--you'd think if an iota of this kind of thinking had any evidence for it, scientists would be refining that knowledge and assimilating it and learning what they could.

Like I said, science doesn't generally deal with the existence of non-existence of gods, precisely due to a lack of evidence. Given the lack of evidence, the most we can say is that we just don't know. But that doesn't mean we can't have opinions about it.

And I and other non-believers am appalled at this silly notion that just because there are two options (Zeus existed or he didn't) that both are equally likely to be true. They aren't.

Nobody said that the two opposing propositions had to be as likely to be true. However, you'd be hard-pressed to determine any meaningful value for the probability of either the existence or non-existence of gods given the lack of evidence.

There are as many gods as there have been for people to imagine them... but there is only one reality that is the same for all people no matter what they believe. There is one truth. I am to find that kind of truth... and smarmy believer talk leaves me feeling manipulated and like they are the last people to have it.

There is one truth, but anyone who says they know the truth is probably mistaken!

You don't see believers as arrogant. I do. Inherently so. They have claims of special knowledge that no scientist can detect in any measurable way. That's arrogant. They claim, not only to know there is a god--but that they know what god wants. That is insanely arrogant. And scary. Faith proffereres seem to be promoting purposeful ignorance while feeling morally surperior from my perspective... and they never present any evidence to show otherwise.

I would agree that those theists who claim to have "special knowledge" are probably full of it. However, I think those theists are in the vast minority compared to those who claim to instead base their belief on faith. Likewise, any claim of "special knowledge" that there are no gods would be equally arrogant.

In other words, the question isn't the belief itself, it's whether or not the belief is claimed to be fact.

-Bri

ETA: I agree with NeilC (aka Splossy)'s comments above.

[Bri]

It reminds me of conversations I have with a Pakistani friend who tells me of the arab point of view of world events. Sitting at home it's easy to yell at the TV thinking "these people are nuts" but of course people are not just nuts, they just see things differently for reasons perfectly valid in context. No matter how even-minded I try to me (which isn't a strong point to be honest) he always catches me out in some Western assumption. BTW he is a hard drinking muslim-raised atheist who doesn't eat pork for some reason I'm yet to get to the bottom of.

This is certainly a derail (perhaps we should start a new thread) but can you explain the Arab point of view? Personally, I never assumed that Arabs were nuts, but I can't understand the point of view that leads people to do some of the things that are being done on a regular basis, nor can I imagine what Western assumptions I'm making that make it so difficult for me to understand.

-Bri

[Myriad]

There are different sorts of believers. In my personal life I've not come across many of the arrogantly faith-assured ones you describe. Most of my friends are fairly intelligent and the ones who believe in a god are not arrogant about it and have all sorts of doubts. They don't preach or even talk that much about their personal belief, but they will pray at a wedding or take communion if offered etc. They appear to sincerely believe in a god but all of them accept evolution and other sciences. I couldn't acuse them of being purposefully ignorant. I read about those other people and see them on TV but I've never met them. What has occured to me is that some of these people are brighter than me, are more switched on, more successful and seem very happy. I used to think their having such beliefs was stupid but maybe it isn't such a big leap of faith or such a degree of ignorance as I thought, especially when compared to the range of beliefs held in all manner of areas.

...

Anyway, the discussion has really been about the ability to dismiss theists as not being capable of being called skeptics and it's definately got me thinking about my assumptions. Which of course makes me the very best kind of skeptic! ;-)


Thank you so much for saying that, NeilC.

I like to think I fit that description, with a few exceptions. One of them is, I make no claim to be more intelligent, more successful, happer etc. than you.

Another one is, that I actually post here occasionally in the R&P forum. All by itself, that puts me in an odd fringe of that group, if not totally outside it.

Which gets me to the point I want to add, which is that most of those people who you've just described are not likely to come here and discuss religion. They might post in other forums about other subjects as I usually do, but they're not interested in prostelytizing or antagonizing. So, theirs is a point of view you don't, and won't, get to hear from very much. I'm not saying there's deliberate exclusion going on, but I can testify that having to answer the aggressive "Christians" who do gird up their loins to show up and preach a little hellfire or hatred, while being regarded by all the skeptics as likely to turn into one of the prostelytizers at any moment, is rather stressful.

Apart from my theistic friends (some of whom are smarter and more successful than me, though some of my atheist friends manage that same feat too), there are four groups of formally recognized "professional" Chrisians I interact with regularly. One is the church that sponsors a Boy Scout troop I volunteer for. Two are involved in an inter-faith community food pantry I've helped out with, one being the church that hosts the pantry and the other the staff of a different church that allows me to collect food for the pantry from their congregation. And the fourth are monks, members of a Roman Catholic order, who run the group home in which a developmentally disabled relative of mine resides.

Not one of them has ever asked me what I believe in, what church I belong to (I'm not a member of any of theirs), or whether I'm "saved." Of course, if my reason for being there was to tell them exactly what I believe about every point of Christian doctrine, I'm sure I'd get plenty of pointed questions back. But all of my dealings with them are ultimately about helping people, and just about the only place in all those interactions where talking about God comes up is in the Scout Oath.

People here won't ever read about these Christians in SWIFT, or see them on television, or read the politically inflammatory books they're not writing. And they certainly aren't going to come here and argue about whether or not they can ever qualify for the illustrious name of "true skeptic." Which means this forum community's perceptions of how Christians think, how they behave, and what they actually believe, will always remain incomplete and distorted by their absence.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[NeilC]

This is certainly a derail (perhaps we should start a new thread) but can you explain the Arab point of view? Personally, I never assumed that Arabs were nuts, but I can't understand the point of view that leads people to do some of the things that are being done on a regular basis, nor can I imagine what Western assumptions I'm making that make it so difficult for me to understand.

-Bri

Probably not really no. I forget the exact subjects and arguments. It's not always say a straightforward political reason. I think one needs to listen first-hand to someone who really does understand how the people see themselves as part of a political, religious and philosophical history; and also understand the level of ignorance and degree of isolation in the rural parts of places like Pakistan (ie most of it). The people, given the environment and what they are told and how they feel about the lack of justice in the world (from their point of view) are bound to think like they do. Of course this is entirely obvious unless you believe in free will.

It reminds me of something I heard from a priest on TV who worked with some horrible prisoners he said, with regards to human behaviour: "to see all is to understand all and to understand all is to forgive all" by which I think he meant that if you could really see and experience everything that led someone to do something then, even with a murderer, you would understand why they did it which sould automatically lead to forgiving them. Which is a pretty decent argument against free will for a Christian whom you might expect to believe god gave us the ability to choose.

[Bri]

Another one is, that I actually post here occasionally in the R&P forum. All by itself, that puts me in an odd fringe of that group, if not totally outside it.

Myriad, thanks for your post. I hope to read more of your posts in the future. I agree that your point of view is shared by the vast majority of theists (at least the vast majority of those I've known), even though not the ones you often see on television. There are several other moderate theists who post in the R&P forum, several of whom have posted to this very thread, and I can't think of anything that would exclude them from being skeptics.

-Bri

[Beth]

Scott informed me I wasn't a skeptic, posts 42 and 46 of this very thread.

[Bri]

It reminds me of something I heard from a priest on TV who worked with some horrible prisoners he said, with regards to human behaviour: "to see all is to understand all and to understand all is to forgive all" by which I think he meant that if you could really see and experience everything that led someone to do something then, even with a murderer, you would understand why they did it which sould automatically lead to forgiving them. Which is a pretty decent argument against free will for a Christian whom you might expect to believe god gave us the ability to choose.

I don't know if we have free will or not, but we could have free will but still be influenced by our experiences. I don't think the priest meant that the prisoners weren't responsible for their actions, just that many of them had some prior experiences (perhaps as children) that made it easier for them to choose to do wrong. If the priest had thought the prisoners didn't have free will, there would be no need to forgive them -- forgiveness implies that the person being forgiven did something wrong.

-Bri

[Bri]

Scott informed me I wasn't a skeptic, posts 42 and 46 of this very thread.

Yeah, I know, but Scott has yet to provide a definition that would exclude you from being a skeptic that wouldn't also exclude just about everyone else in the world.

In other words, Scott hasn't provided much evidence to support his opinion. Which, according to Scott, makes him un-skeptical.

-Bri

[voidx]

Let's start off by reiterating what I did several pages back. Skepticism is not a social club, its not a gang. Its not something you join. Its a process, of not taking all ideas at face value. No one can be a skeptic anymore than anyone can be a True Scotsman.

What I'm saying is that people's sense of skepticism can and does get applied to various degrees to their own beliefs. A person's skeptical inquiry of one belief or idea may be much stronger than their skeptical inquiry of another, more tightly held belief.

So lets just drop the "can a theist be a skeptic" schtick. How about, do theists apply their sense of skepticism and strongly to their theist beliefs as they do beliefs about say homeopathy or dowsing, or the claims of the latest wonder drug. Or do they, knowing they are inconsistent, and without evidence and proof, give their skeptical inquiry only a light run over those beliefs?

Yes Splossy's question is relevant, and I answered it. If you want to define "skepticism" in such a way that a theist cannot be a skeptic, you would also preclude a strong atheist from being a skeptic. You simply cannot exclude one without excluding the other. For that matter, you would also exclude anyone who has an opinion on any topic from being a skeptic. I'm guessing you have opinions yourself, don't you?

Since I'm not trying to lump people into a defined group called skeptics, this arguement is off target. I don't think its a useful exercise. Strong atheists have their own assumptions they must justify. I've openly said that. However, them justifying their assumptions has no relation on the validity or whether or not theists have justified theirs.

In case I haven't made it clear yet I believe the only logical position is neutral. That Gods or no Gods its a question of the validity of theism. Since Theism is inherently metaphysical, unless someone has an objectively observable, testable definition of deities, then it cannot be quantified by our current objective, physical viewpoint of reality. So "opinions" one way or the other are simply just that, opinions without logical justification. Some are still willing to move forward with using that as one of the foundations of their worldviews and their life and behaviour. I personally wouldn't. I don't deny it, I simply don't use it because I cannot see the objective benefit.


No, having an opinion is not a "get out of jail free card" as long as one admits that it's only an opinion. Do you know anyone who doesn't have an opinion about nearly every topic for which there is no conclusive evidence?

Sure people have opinions about all sorts of stuff. I think it comes down to a matter of conviction however. I think vaccines are useful, I'm fairly convinced of that. But I'm not fully convinced of it. I don't have the prerequisite knowledge to have a very strong and explainable conviction about it. However, if so inclined, I could obtain that knowledge and demonstrate it objectively to others. Can the same be said for belief in God / No God?


Personally, I think skeptics can have opinions. The only people I can think of that could be skeptics under your definition are people who are entirely ignorant of the topic (and therefore don't have opinions). So only people who are entirely ignorant can be skeptics? It's consistent at least, but seems to preclude nearly everyone from being a skeptic.

Again, I'm not looking to create a container group for people called Skeptics where some belong and some don't. If you think I'm trying to form such a definition then you're incorrect. To what extent does a person skeptically consider their belief in God. How does the level of that skeptical inquiry compare with how they might skeptically consider any of their other beliefs. How does their skeptical inquiry of the belief in God compare with my own, with logic, with objective observed reality?

Being only loosely skeptical about the actual taste of Pepsi being better than Coke is certainly to apply your skepticism less fully. But most wouldn't bother commenting on it as its not a very life affirming topic. If however a belief/opinion is the basis for a large number of other beliefs, and its a foundation of ones worldview, then I think it fair to ask just how thoroughly, a person has skeptically evaluated that belief. If a person has serious doubts or knowingly believes in the concept despite any conclusive proof, then how skeptical they are about that particular belief can be rightly called into question.

So again, the question becomes, if most modern theists, being rather moderate in their belief in God and having doubts and lack of objective evidence, then what causes them to continue positing and advocating that belief?


No, I disagree with your definition, but at least it now seems to be consistent in that you've managed to eliminate everyone with an opinion from being a skeptic.

Again, that's not what I'm attempting to do, and I'm unclear what you think my definition happens to be.


You realize that the text in bold signifies an opinion, right? Since there's no conclusive evidence that it is unskeptical to have an opinion, that means you're not being skeptical with your definition, doesn't it?

Again, I feel your putting a defintion on me that I've not advocated. I think its entirely possible to show that a person has been more or less diligent in their skeptical evaluation of any particular idea. I think its possible to show that if people have not considered all the pertinent questions or knowledge, or at the very least have considered less than I have, my skeptical inquiry into that idea that they have formed an opinion of, might be more validated than theirs. I think its fair to say that if two people have considered an idea, given it similar skeptical analysis, and one comes out saying, "I still believe" where the other may come out saying "I can't make an objective judgement on that at this point in time" that one may be more justified than the other.

Notice that I've not made the counter point "I don't believe" because I'll reiterate that that position holds the similar problems.

You would certainly be free and justified to go through my various beliefs and opinions and point out how I've applied less skeptical inquiry to some than others. And I'd likely whole heartedly agree, if my personal bias was such that I could acknowledge it at all. I know for a fact you would find topics I'm less skeptical of than others. Same for theists.

The questions is not, can theists be skeptics. Its, how truly, objectively skeptical are theists about their own beliefs in God. You can ask the same of atheists too, I fully agree. Just don't point at a strong atheist and say, "Well he has to as well", and then not answer the question :) (I'm talking of theists here, not you in particular)

[Bri]

Let's start off by reiterating what I did several pages back. Skepticism is not a social club, its not a gang. Its not something you join. Its a process, of not taking all ideas at face value. No one can be a skeptic anymore than anyone can be a True Scotsman.

Most of us (with the possible exception of scotth) understand this. However, you're really just defining skepticism as the application of the skeptical process of not taking all ideas at face value. So again we are back to the same question of how you can distinguish whether or not one is applying the process and what exactly the process is.

So lets just drop the "can a theist be a skeptic" schtick. How about, do theists apply their sense of skepticism and strongly to their theist beliefs as they do beliefs about say homeopathy or dowsing, or the claims of the latest wonder drug. Or do they, knowing they are inconsistent, and without evidence and proof, give their skeptical inquiry only a light run over those beliefs?

Claims of homeopathy, dowsing, the claims of drugs -- all can be tested. The JREF does it all the time. You're going to be hard-pressed to design a test of whether or not a god exists. If a believer is adamant that a god always grants prayers, even when being studied, we could possibly test that claim as well. But that's about the closest we're probably going to get to proving or disproving a god.

So are you saying that in cases where we cannot test a claim, we must be entirely agnostic about it? Can we vote given that we can't really determine objectively which candidate is best? Can we belong to a political party? Can we have opinions on important topics like abortion, the death penalty, etc. given that there's no clear answer?

In case I haven't made it clear yet I believe the only logical position is neutral.

Obviously, I have several problems with that statement.

First, you appear to be doing exactly what you said you weren't doing above, but just changing the terminology from "skeptical" to "logical."

Second, you appear to suggest that the only "logical" position is to remain neutral rather than having an opinion about any topic for which there is no conclusive evidence. That's highly impractical when it comes to important issues such as those listed above.

Sure people have opinions about all sorts of stuff. I think it comes down to a matter of conviction however. I think vaccines are useful, I'm fairly convinced of that. But I'm not fully convinced of it. I don't have the prerequisite knowledge to have a very strong and explainable conviction about it. However, if so inclined, I could obtain that knowledge and demonstrate it objectively to others. Can the same be said for belief in God / No God?

Or that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system? Or that red licorice is better than black licorice? Or that President Bush is a good/bad president? Or that abortion is bad? Or that the death penalty is good? Or any of the other things that we have opinions (and, yes, strong convictions) about every day?

The problem is that unlike with vaccines, there's not always good evidence available. We can't always present all of the studies that have been done and demonstrate that one conclusion is right and the other wrong. We also shouldn't and can't simply remain neutral on all such issues.

So again, the question becomes, if most modern theists, being rather moderate in their belief in God and having doubts and lack of objective evidence, then what causes them to continue positing and advocating that belief?

It's an opinion, just like the many opinions you hold every day of your life. Yes, theists lack evidence. They looked at the limited evidence for and against the belief that a god exists and came to a different conclusion than you did. And they often retain the belief until contrary evidence becomes available to them.

Again, that's not what I'm attempting to do, and I'm unclear what you think my definition happens to be.

Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding you, but it still seems like you are, but now you have changed it slightly to whether or not a person is applying the process of skepticism. And I agree, it is unclear what your definition of the process happens to be.

You could have said that the process of skepticism cannot be defined and it cannot be determined when one is applying it or not. That would have at least been consistent. But it appears like you then attempted to explain how belief in a god amounts to not applying the process, which again requires you to define the process it in some way.

Again, I feel your putting a defintion on me that I've not advocated. I think its entirely possible to show that a person has been more or less diligent in their skeptical evaluation of any particular idea.

I apologize if I have put words in your mouth. I didn't mean to, and it is very possible that I misunderstood what you were saying. So, can you explain this process by which it is entirely possible to show that a person has been more or less diligent in their skeptical evaluation of any particular idea?

It just seems like you're being more "diligent" in applying the process (whatever it is) towards the belief in gods than you are in applying the process towards other opinions that one might have.

I think its possible to show that if people have not considered all the pertinent questions or knowledge, or at the very least have considered less than I have, my skeptical inquiry into that idea that they have formed an opinion of, might be more validated than theirs.

OK, so if I'm understanding you here (please correct me if I'm wrong), you're saying that the amount of skepticism has to do with how rigorously a person has considered the evidence for and against a particular position. So, you seem to think that theists aren't particular skeptical in their belief concerning the existence of god. Do you feel that theists are "less skeptical" because they haven't considered the available evidence? What about those who have considered the available evidence and concluded that they believe there is a god?

I think its fair to say that if two people have considered an idea, given it similar skeptical analysis, and one comes out saying, "I still believe" where the other may come out saying "I can't make an objective judgement on that at this point in time" that one may be more justified than the other.

Notice that I've not made the counter point "I don't believe" because I'll reiterate that that position holds the similar problems.

And here it seems like you're saying (I don't want to put words in your mouth so please correct me if I'm wrong) that if all of the evidence is equally considered, it is "more skeptical" to be entirely agnostic (have no opinion whatsoever about the topic, as if that's possible) than to have an opinion one way or the other.

The questions is not, can theists be skeptics. Its, how truly, objectively skeptical are theists about their own beliefs in God. You can ask the same of atheists too, I fully agree. Just don't point at a strong atheist and say, "Well he has to as well", and then not answer the question :) (I'm talking of theists here, not you in particular)

Sure, OK. I think we agree that if the question needs to be answered, it needs to be answered for both theism and strong atheism.

So, how do we answer the question?

-Bri

[articulett]

Claims of homeopathy, dowsing, the claims of drugs -- all can be tested. The JREF does it all the time. You're going to be hard-pressed to design a test of whether or not a god exists. If a believer is adamant that a god always grants prayers, even when being studied, we could possibly test that claim as well. But that's about the closest we're probably going to get to proving or disproving a god.

That is true so long as someone's god is indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion-- so long as he/she/it is immeasurable and doesn't interact with the physical universe. If God is a "feeling", then that is true. But people define so many different kinds of gods so many different kinds of ways, it is sensible to conclude that your god is on par with all gods of history past until or unless evidence shows otherwise. The same goes for all invisible, immeasurable forces and beliefs indistinguishable from known human delusions.

So are you saying that in cases where we cannot test a claim, we must be entirely agnostic about it? Can we vote given that we can't really determine objectively which candidate is best? Can we belong to a political party? Can we have opinions on important topics like abortion, the death penalty, etc. given that there's no clear answer?

I hat this kind of sloppy thinking that faith promotes. First of all there are facts... facts are the same for everybody no matter what they believe. The earth was spherical even as humans thought it was flat and it never was the center of the universe or the solar systems even though humans thought it was and it revolves around the sun even though it appears that the sun rises and sets to the people on the planet. It's also a star which is a fact that humans discovered... not any scriptural text. Everything else is not fact-- that includes faith, feelings, opinions, mottos, ideas, notions, preference, myths,lies, parables, metaphors, beliefs, etc. As long as these are recognized as "not factual" and subjective and prone to interpretation by parties making the claims and hearing the claims, there isn't much of a problem for most skeptics.

you appear to suggest that the only "logical" position is to remain neutral rather than having an opinion about any topic for which there is no conclusive evidence. That's highly impractical when it comes to important issues such as those listed above.

I thought voidx's response was great... and you are once again confusing fact with opinion. I'd say that until there is evidence that something does exist, most skeptics are content to believe it does not. Until a claim is made, the subject is an opinion which deserves all the respect of similar opinions.


Or that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system? Or that red licorice is better than black licorice? Or that President Bush is a good/bad president? Or that abortion is bad? Or that the death penalty is good? Or any of the other things that we have opinions (and, yes, strong convictions) about every day?

See. Those are not statements of fact. The intelligent life question is and that will have a factual answer that we don't know yet. A skeptic says, "I don't know" when they don't know. The rest are opinions using human words to describe human feelings and issues. Facts can be used to support these opinions, sway others, or govern policies... but that doesn't make the conclusions true. The facts are true... opinions don't fit in that category. Religions like to confuse people between the to and infer they are offering "higher truths" while making believers feel bad should they ask for evidence.


The problem is that unlike with vaccines, there's not always good evidence available. We can't always present all of the studies that have been done and demonstrate that one conclusion is right and the other wrong. We also shouldn't and can't simply remain neutral on all such issues.

Who is neutral. And regarding vaccines... if you design your questions right you can find your answers and a skeptic will be more convinced on the position as the evidence accumulates so that the issue can be understood. It's all the nebulousness and semantics and the confusion of facts for everything else that pisses me off as a skeptic. From where I sit you are trying to justify your beliefs to yourself by getting us to agree that they are not irrational. If your beliefs are good and rational then what does it matter if we respect them or find you credulous and using confirmation bias in certain areas? If your beliefs are true--they are true whether we respect them or not. It's the fact that the faithful seem to need to do this underhanded derision of non believers or demand a sort of deference for their faith that I find annoying. So does he: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg
You can understand that, right. To us it seems like you are using your arguments to shore up your shaky beliefs. Otherwise, why bring them up here. Lots of skeptics appear to be deistic or agnostic or apatheistic, ignostic, or refrain from stating their beliefs. I think it's because they understands that beliefs, like feelings, are not necessarily rational, and they may not want them open to scrutiny. Why would you care if most skeptics conclude that you were not being skeptical when it comes to your own beliefs? To me, that says you are either trying to strengthen your beliefs by fighting for them or trying to shore them up and find new reasons to keep the faith by convincing others and in the process convincing yourself.


It's an opinion, just like the many opinions you hold every day of your life. Yes, theists lack evidence. They looked at the limited evidence for and against the belief that a god exists and came to a different conclusion than you did. And they often retain the belief until contrary evidence becomes available to them.

And how is this different from the opinion that the tooth fairy is real. Millions of kids get change under their pillows after losing teeth. Could they ALL be deceived? Isn't your lack of evidence for your god the same as the lack of evidence for Allah-- yet people are willing to die to be with Allah-- what sort of contrary evidence do you think would make them change their mind. What can make a person change their mind who has incorporated the belief that faith is "good"--necessary for salvation... that a god can read your mind and tell if you have it... that those who have it are special and chosen and live happily ever after while those who lack it perish forever? What can make a cult member change their mind. Aren't successful religions like successful regimes and gangs and cartels very good and getting people to let their leaders think for them-- to quell dissent-- to promote faith and loyalty above all else--to recruit with the promise that they can rise in rank as they do so?

I often wonder if women believe because they are afraid not to. The whole pandora's box thing-- Eve biting from the tree of knowledge ensuring the suffering of all her descendants.
Why would an invisible all loving entity care if you believed in him-- such a weird thing to care about... he could manifest at any time... kind of a wacky test with an unclear rubric.
Do you think Andrea Yates was successful in ensuring her kids passed the test and got to live happily ever after by killing them before they could sin enough to warrant eternal punishment? Wasn't Andrea Yates very logical if her beliefs were true and life was a test to determine your eternity. Wouldn't god have known about all this in advance. I was silent about my atheism when my son was young, because I didn't want it taken out on him... I didn't want relatives fearing that he would go to hell and indoctrinating him on the sly. I don't think religion makes people into better people--but it does make them think that they are.


Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding you, but it still seems like you are, but now you have changed it slightly to whether or not a person is applying the process of skepticism. And I agree, it is unclear what your definition of the process happens to be.

You could have said that the process of skepticism cannot be defined and it cannot be determined when one is applying it or not. That would have at least been consistent. But it appears like you then attempted to explain how belief in a god amounts to not applying the process, which again requires you to define the process it in some way.

I think s/he was saying that you have given skepticism such a fuzzy definition just like your god-- it ends up being a useless term. You are not using your skepticism when examining your own beliefs the way you would if you were examining Scientology or the existence of Zeus or whether people can be possessed. You've already made a conclusion and you seek semantics and emotions and an occasional fuzzy fact or definition to prop up that view. You want your beliefs to be true, so you don't test the null hypothesis. You don't do anything to distinguish your beliefs from similar cases where similar people believed similar thing based on the same lack of evidence-- and you know they were not right (the Heavens Gate Crowd) for example. Having 2 options does not make them both equally likely. You pretend that it does. Your faith taught you to do that. But there are as many versions of gods as there are imaginations and many assertions about what his invisibleness can and can do and does or doesn't want. But each one is as likely to be true as any other as far as the evidence is concerned. And until there is evidence that consciousness can exist outside a living brain (and understanding neurology, I don't see how it can... but I can understand why people believe in souls)-- then most skeptics will be doubtful of such claims. How can anyone be an expert on the invisible and immeasurable and the indistinguishable from the imaginary? The only way they can get the info. who through revelation, faith, feelings, and supposed gurus. And history shows those are very poor methods for finding truth but excellent ways to make people think they have the truth while closing themselves off from facts.

[/QUOTE]
I apologize if I have put words in your mouth. I didn't mean to, and it is very possible that I misunderstood what you were saying. So, can you explain this process by which it is entirely possible to show that a person has been more or less diligent in their skeptical evaluation of any particular idea?

It just seems like you're being more "diligent" in applying the process (whatever it is) towards the belief in gods than you are in applying the process towards other opinions that one might have.

Simple... do you use the same approach when evaluating whether your god exists as you do in evaluating whether other gods exist? Do you use the same approach when evaluating whether engrams are real? Do you use the same scrutiny as when your neighbor tells you aliens are visiting them at night? Why or why not? What you are doing is what all believers do-- they are accepting something as true until someone proves it untrue. But how can one prove Zeus doesn't exist? Or that aliens aren't visiting your neighbors? You can't. And that's what your challenging a skeptic to do with your god. It's a common woo tactic as I'm sure you know. But skeptics don't go around proving something false-- we are just trying to figure out what is true amidst all the spin, semantics, inferences, opinions, claims, bluster, and fuzzy righteous talk.

[QUOTE]
OK, so if I'm understanding you here (please correct me if I'm wrong), you're saying that the amount of skepticism has to do with how rigorously a person has considered the evidence for and against a particular position. So, you seem to think that theists aren't particular skeptical in their belief concerning the existence of god. Do you feel that theists are "less skeptical" because they haven't considered the available evidence? What about those who have considered the available evidence and concluded that they believe there is a god?

Then, as voidx said, they haven't applied their skepticism to that belief--instead they've probably applied confirmation bias. They have not examined their claims of god in the way they'd examine a Moonies claims about god. And I suspect it's because they don't want to believe they can be fooled even though they are well aware that tons of people clearly are. Plus, they are afraid not to have faith. They need faith. Or at least they've been told as much... so it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy, doesn't it? They are told that they can suffer forever without it-- pascal's wager... may as well be on the "safe side" (if only we knew exactly what we were supposed to believe and how to make ourselves believe it since there is vast disagreement on th subject and lots of different infallible guys telling you what god wants.)


And here it seems like you're saying (I don't want to put words in your mouth so please correct me if I'm wrong) that if all of the evidence is equally considered, it is "more skeptical" to be entirely agnostic (have no opinion whatsoever about the topic, as if that's possible) than to have an opinion one way or the other.

Agnostic is a claim about whether something can be known. When a skeptic doesn't know something, s/he says "I don't know"... and/or that is a question that is not knowable. (We can't know if somebody's version of god in their head matches some god that actually exists because no gods are currently measurable... all gods are indistinguishable from the gods a schizophrenic might be talking to-- or even claim to be. An atheist can also be agnostic. An atheist just has no beliefs in any gods--not yours or any others that people imagine but can't define or measure or be tested. We note that humans have been making up invisible forms of consciousness for eons despite not a scintilla of scientific evidence that such things exist-- and that is something scientists would love to refine and hone if true. Just look what we discovered after Darwin--DNA--the entire code of life... and invisible world that give the whole history of life on earth. We understand a lot about the brain... how language allows us to be a sort of narrator in our heads and intelligence allows us to realize we will die and we think ahead. We evolved to be agency detectors-- we see meaning and intent and patterns where there is none because having such abilities gave our ancestors a survival edge. We understand a lot how the brain generates gods and souls and demons-- (how else were primitive ancestors to explain primitive urges that seemed beyond their control?) We are a story telling species-- before print, it was our only way to pass on knowledge so our offspring could advance that knowledge. We understand why humans thought the earth was flat. And we are understanding why humans invent gods and how the more virulent ones inculcate the young with the notion that faith is an avenue for "higher truths"-- necessary for morality and salvation-- and also the notion that scientists and facts are boring and pedestrian and even untrustworthy.


So, how do we answer the question?

-Bri

I think voidx did answer it. Skepticism is a method. There are people who consider themselves skeptics and they do apply the tools of skepticism to many areas of their lives.
However, believers in things for which there is no evidence are not applying their skepticism to that area-- believers in gods do not apply the same skepticism to their god as they do to others. They do not test the null hypothesis. They do not want to know if they are fooling themselves. They'd rather believe in their god than to conclude that there is no more likely that he exists than all the other gods they don't believe in.

[cnorman18]

Articulett, I thank you. You certainly chose the right screenname; that was as articulate and illuminating a post as I have read since I came here, and I learned a lot from it. I think I am beginning to grasp the skeptic and/or atheist position better than I have up till now.

I find myself wondering about something that I'm sure is a silly question, but I ask in good faith: how would a skeptic/atheist make moral judgments about behavior?

Let me add quickly that this is in no sense a "trap" question or an effort to say that moral values must come from religion; that is nonsense. The atheists I have known have, every one, been people of high moral character and great integrity. In fact, the skeptical approach seems to me to require integrity; one refuses to pretend to believe, even to oneself, that one believes things that "ain't so," as Mark Twain put it. That, to me, is far more admirable than the kind of self-induced intellectual coma that seems to be common among believers: "This is what I'm supposed to believe, so I believe it, whether I do or not..." I've never quite gotten my head around how anyone can "try to believe" anything. You do, or you don't.

But I do wonder how, for example, one can objectively prove that stealing is wrong, absent consequences. If I can steal something and not get caught, why not do it?

Again, don't get me wrong here; I'm not talking about a fear of Hell or anything like that. For the record, I've always been a bit suspicious of that motivation anyway--if one's ethics are based on getting a heavenly cookie if one is good, and a hellish spanking if one is bad, where is the intrinsic morality in them?

Given that, unlike logic, there is no moral code built into the universe, and absent the belief that there is such a code that originates with God, from where would such a code come?

Is it just a matter of opinion, and one code is as good and valid as another? Is it a consensus of society at a given time and place? Or is there a way to find a moral code that is universally valid?

Again, I assure you that I ask in good faith. It seems to me that the basic moral principles shared by most of humanity have an objective truth of their own, independent of God (and in fact superior to Him, at least in Jewish belief).

So where do they come from, and can they be proven correct? If so, how?

And if not, what does that mean, if anything?

Thanks again. I really enjoy your writing.

[voidx]

Most of us (with the possible exception of scotth) understand this. However, you're really just defining skepticism as the application of the skeptical process of not taking all ideas at face value. So again we are back to the same question of how you can distinguish whether or not one is applying the process and what exactly the process is.

While people understand it, it doesn't mean that they don't unconsciously start slipping back into the practice. Which is why I keep reiterating it. Not groups, methods, and the honest evaluation of how various people apply that method.

To me skepticism is the process of honest inquiry into any idea, with the knowledge of one's own personal bias in hand and to actively evaluation all strengths and weakness' of that idea to see if its consistency and logic hold true.

The process varies. Discussions with others, research material, application of ones own logic, reading of counter-points to any idea. Discussing the idea openly with others to see what assumptions you may unwittingly be making, and then re-evaluating them to see if their still valid.

Every person is going to assume their own internal process of skeptical evaluation is fine. Its our personal bias. What I'm saying is that if we talk and discuss about how we have all evaluated a particular idea, we can come to some objective conclusions about which process of inquiry is perhaps more thorough than another. How many assumptions are made that are unjustified? Are they acknowledged or glazed over?


Claims of homeopathy, dowsing, the claims of drugs -- all can be tested. The JREF does it all the time. You're going to be hard-pressed to design a test of whether or not a god exists. If a believer is adamant that a god always grants prayers, even when being studied, we could possibly test that claim as well. But that's about the closest we're probably going to get to proving or disproving a god.

Which was mainly my point. If an idea cannot have a test defined for it in the first place, then I think we're fair in saying that believing in it is less logical/rational/skeptical than believing in something that can be tested, but still may not yet be conclusive.

Note that this does not prevent one from holding a belief or opinion on that idea, so lets just discard that canard now. You are freely open to hold it. Just as anyone else is freely open to question just how logical/rational/skeptical it is of you to have reached that opinion and advocate it. How logical, how rational, how skeptical. Shades of gray, not black and white.


So are you saying that in cases where we cannot test a claim, we must be entirely agnostic about it? Can we vote given that we can't really determine objectively which candidate is best? Can we belong to a political party? Can we have opinions on important topics like abortion, the death penalty, etc. given that there's no clear answer?

Obviously not. I note the use of the word entirely before agnostic to give the sense that this is a hard and fast defined stance. Its not. I'm saying that taking a stance in support of an opinion that cannot be tested, can be argued to be less skeptical/rational/logical than someone evaluating the same idea and deciding that since it cannot be tested, that it cannot be objectively known or decided, the best idea is to, at that point in time, claim the neutral stance of "I don't know". Notice that this stance can be ammended later upon introduction of new information, or a testable hypothesis.

Your examples have gone a bit off track in my opinion. Your taking subjective ideas and trying to make them absolute. There is no "Best" candidate for all people. There is no "clear cut opinion" about abortion that works best in all situations. These are ethical/moral/subjective dilemma's. The existence of God is not. Either it does exist or it doesn't.


Obviously, I have several problems with that statement.

First, you appear to be doing exactly what you said you weren't doing above, but just changing the terminology from "skeptical" to "logical."

You misunderstand. But to eliminate it from happening further. Freely interchange skeptical, rational, logical, or any other word you'd like to insert. I'm arguing about the applied degree of skepticism/rationalism/logical....ism :) to various beliefs a person might have. I'm not arguing the line of "you are skeptical about this, you are unskeptical about that." Rather it falls more in the lines of, "in talking with you about various beliefs I think you have applied less skepticism to some than others. I state this based on discussions about your beliefs and how you arrived at them and having compared them with my own evaluations of those ideas, or of the ideas you specifically have put forth, along with comparisons to a whole world of other opinions and evaluations of that similar idea by others"


Second, you appear to suggest that the only "logical" position is to remain neutral rather than having an opinion about any topic for which there is no conclusive evidence. That's highly impractical when it comes to important issues such as those listed above.

I think you'll find many ideas and things in life to be impractical. Starkly pro life or pro choice as an example is impractical. It cannot hope to apply to all situations. Instead, an opinion that falls somewhere in between is often the "most" practical in "most" situations. But again, those are issues, they are inherently subjective. They are not pertaining to the objective existence of an attribute of the known universe.


Or that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system? Or that red licorice is better than black licorice? Or that President Bush is a good/bad president? Or that abortion is bad? Or that the death penalty is good? Or any of the other things that we have opinions (and, yes, strong convictions) about every day?

And yet all those things have objective attributes that we can weigh and measure and ponder and even test if we so choose. Your opinion of those ideas is based on something besides pure faith. And that makes a difference.


The problem is that unlike with vaccines, there's not always good evidence available. We can't always present all of the studies that have been done and demonstrate that one conclusion is right and the other wrong. We also shouldn't and can't simply remain neutral on all such issues.

I never said we should. There's a difference between not always good evidence and a seeming lack of evidence overall. Your right, we cannot practically always present all the studies that have been done. But that implies that we've looked at some, that we know of the existence of evidence, should we wish to go make ourselves aware of it and knowledgable of it. Again, that is the difference.


It's an opinion, just like the many opinions you hold every day of your life. Yes, theists lack evidence. They looked at the limited evidence for and against the belief that a god exists and came to a different conclusion than you did. And they often retain the belief until contrary evidence becomes available to them.

I've changed enough opinions in my lifetime that I have learned to to put a tentative note on all those things I've not thoroughly researched myself. Yes, people obviously have come to different conclusions than myself, that's obvious. Again, you've phrased it in black or white, for or against the belief in God. It lacks the middle ground, the logical neutrality of not having enough information to make a clearly rational/logical/skeptical conclusion.

How precisely does one have contrary evidence to something that one cannot objectively show to exist. Rather, the counter-point is, I have many objective ways of evaluating reality. This particular belief doesn't seem to fit at this time, it does not have any predictive or explanatory power, that is superior to what I can objectively use. Hence, despite my opinions on it, I cannot posit it as something useful at this time.


Perhaps I'm still misunderstanding you, but it still seems like you are, but now you have changed it slightly to whether or not a person is applying the process of skepticism. And I agree, it is unclear what your definition of the process happens to be.

I've not changed anything. I've always been getting at what degree of a persons skepticism is applied to their various beliefs. This freely admits that peoples own personal definition and methodology of skepticism likely vary. I'm not trying to define a global process of skepticism. Everyone defines that themselves. Its only when we talk and discuss and converse with one another that we can begin to see and compare how some methods and degrees of skeptical inquiry may be superior/inferior to others in an objective sense.


You could have said that the process of skepticism cannot be defined and it cannot be determined when one is applying it or not. That would have at least been consistent. But it appears like you then attempted to explain how belief in a god amounts to not applying the process, which again requires you to define the process it in some way.

Incorrect. I've never said belief in God applied no skeptical thought process. What I have implied is that the depth of the skeptical evaluation of the belief in God may not have been as thorough as applied to other beliefs that same person also holds.


So, can you explain this process by which it is entirely possible to show that a person has been more or less diligent in their skeptical evaluation of any particular idea?

Simple communication and questioning. Read about the various aspects of philosphy and science and religioun and deism. Discuss with others, ask them openly what lead to their beliefs, how they justify them to theirselves, how they came to hold them. Compare to other peoples conclusions, try to get people, including yourself to admit personal bias, and the limits of our perception.


It just seems like you're being more "diligent" in applying the process (whatever it is) towards the belief in gods than you are in applying the process towards other opinions that one might have.

A bit of a flip around that. I don't apply the process. I'm interesting in what process others have applied to their own belief in God as an example. I personally can't make the connection to the belief for myself, so I ask others openly how they arrived at theirs. It only seems like a big deal because many people don't like having their faith derived beliefs discussed or dissected too closely, from my own personal experience.


OK, so if I'm understanding you here (please correct me if I'm wrong), you're saying that the amount of skepticism has to do with how rigorously a person has considered the evidence for and against a particular position. So, you seem to think that theists aren't particular skeptical in their belief concerning the existence of god. Do you feel that theists are "less skeptical" because they haven't considered the available evidence? What about those who have considered the available evidence and concluded that they believe there is a god?

We must acknowledge that some people have ideas or beliefs that they would simply like to be true, and experiences and evidence can be shoe-horned to confirm that belief. This is all about degree's. A persons skeptical evaluation may be very different from mine. A person's skeptical evaluations are only as good as their knowledge.

For those that have considered and concluded in a belief, then I ask for the rational/logical justifications that lead them to that belief. But curiously, as you mentioned previously I think, many openly say they cannot provide one. That they believe in spite of a lack of these. I think one would have to show strongly the justifications for a strong conclusion in the belief in God because of what it would potentially imply.


Sure, OK. I think we agree that if the question needs to be answered, it needs to be answered for both theism and strong atheism.

So long as we also agree that should strong atheists refuse to answer the questions, that it would not in anyway release theists from answering them. That they are off the hook because of a strong atheists stubborn refusal to answer the question.

In short, quit worrying about all the counter positions for a moment and answer the implications of your own (theists I mean, I've no idea if you are one or not, not that it matters in this context)

[voidx]

But I do wonder how, for example, one can objectively prove that stealing is wrong, absent consequences. If I can steal something and not get caught, why not do it?

Why do you put in the caveat "absent consequences"? I'd suggest consequences go a long way into naturally governing peoples behaviour. Can stealing be listed absolutely as being "right" or "wrong"? Could it ever apply to all scenario's? In general, as a large community of people its overall better not to steal from each other, so as to promote a better social cohesion and cooperation which in itself is beneficial. It doesn't mean you can't do it, or shouldn't, or won't. Merely that in general, its better not too, and having been raised in a culture or community or belonging to a group of people cooperating for mutual benefit, its generally agreed that its counter-productive and hence discouraged.

Do we really need any higher level justification than that?

I find when discussing morales and ethics, people tend to focus on the negatives. If no morales, then what prevents me to do A, B, or C. Well without morales with motivates you to doing good things D, E, or F? Social and communal benefit.

[Bri]

Interesting post, articulett.

That is true so long as someone's god is indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion-- so long as he/she/it is immeasurable and doesn't interact with the physical universe.

This has been discussed at length on other threads. A god that interacts with the physical universe is not necessarily testable, particularly if it is also omnipotent. Such a god could avoid detection if it so chose.

Everything else is not fact-- that includes faith, feelings, opinions, mottos, ideas, notions, preference, myths,lies, parables, metaphors, beliefs, etc. As long as these are recognized as "not factual" and subjective and prone to interpretation by parties making the claims and hearing the claims, there isn't much of a problem for most skeptics.

Beliefs can be either fact or opinion. So what part of "a god exists" or "no gods exist" are facts rather than opinion? If they aren't fact, then I'm happy to hear that they aren't much of a problem for most skeptics. If that is the case, then we are in agreement.

I thought voidx's response was great... and you are once again confusing fact with opinion. I'd say that until there is evidence that something does exist, most skeptics are content to believe it does not.

Until there is evidence that something exists or doesn't exist, the belief that it does or does not is only opinion. I have no problem with skeptics having either the opinion that it exists or doesn't exist. If that's what you're saying then we're in agreement.

Until a claim is made, the subject is an opinion which deserves all the respect of similar opinions.

I agree entirely.

See. Those are not statements of fact. The intelligent life question is and that will have a factual answer that we don't know yet.

The intelligent life question will have an answer only if intelligent life exist, and we happen to encounter it. If there is no intelligent life outside of our solar system, or intelligent beings are so far away that we'll never encounter them, or intelligent beings are actively trying to avoid detection, we will likely never have an answer.

That is precisely the dilemma we face with gods. If one exists, we may never know it until one makes itself known to us. If none exists, we will never know it.

A skeptic says, "I don't know" when they don't know.

I agree. But of course that doesn't prevent a skeptic from having an opinion one way or the other, even when they don't know for sure. A belief in light of not knowing for certain is exactly what an opinion is. Theists often use the term "faith-based belief" to signify the same thing (otherwise, they would call it a "fact-based belief").

Religions like to confuse people between the to and infer they are offering "higher truths" while making believers feel bad should they ask for evidence.

That's quite a generalization there, and doesn't apply to all believers nor all religions. Actually, the majority of your post seems to be generalizations that seem to apply only towards a vast minority of believers.

From where I sit you are trying to justify your beliefs to yourself by getting us to agree that they are not irrational. If your beliefs are good and rational then what does it matter if we respect them or find you credulous and using confirmation bias in certain areas? If your beliefs are true--they are true whether we respect them or not.

First of all, you seem to be making some huge assumptions about my personal beliefs (unless you are using "you" in the generic sense).

Second of all, I can think of no definition for "irrational" that would include the opinion that there is a god, but not the opinion that there are no gods.

Third, I'm not certain that theists care as much as you apparently think they do whether you respect them or their beliefs or not. However, not respecting someone because they have a different opinion than you do might, in fact, be irrational.

I think s/he was saying that you have given skepticism such a fuzzy definition just like your god-- it ends up being a useless term.

Then please redefine it for us so that it's not such a useless term. I suspect that you will define it in such a way that a theist can be a skeptic (that would be the "fuzzy" definition you seem to take offense to), or you will define it in such a way that nobody can be a skeptic. Nobody with an opinion, anyway.

Then, as voidx said, they haven't applied their skepticism to that belief--instead they've probably applied confirmation bias.

Oh, I see! If a theist considers all available evidence and comes to a different conclusion than you do, they're necessarily using confirmation bias and therefore aren't applying skepticism!

Agnostic is a claim about whether something can be known. When a skeptic doesn't know something, s/he says "I don't know"... and/or that is a question that is not knowable...An atheist can also be agnostic.

Agnosticism is usually defined as the claim that something is currently unknown (whether or not it can be known). Either a theist or an atheist can also be an agnostic, as long as they don't claim to know for certain (i.e. that their belief is opinion rather than fact).

I think voidx did answer it. Skepticism is a method. There are people who consider themselves skeptics and they do apply the tools of skepticism to many areas of their lives.

Some of whom are theists. Unless you can provide a different definition of "skepticism" that has already been presented in this thread.

However, believers in things for which there is no evidence are not applying their skepticism to that area--

So those who hold the belief that there are no gods are not applying skepticism to that area. Those who believe that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system are not applying skepticism to that area.

In other words, anyone who has an opinion about anything for which there is no conclusive evidence is not applying skepticism in that area. Or did you mean to only exclude opinions that you disagree with?

believers in gods do not apply the same skepticism to their god as they do to others. They do not test the null hypothesis. They do not want to know if they are fooling themselves. They'd rather believe in their god than to conclude that there is no more likely that he exists than all the other gods they don't believe in.

I suspect that you are wrong in that regard concerning the vast majority of believers in gods.

-Bri

[Bri]

I find myself wondering about something that I'm sure is a silly question, but I ask in good faith: how would a skeptic/atheist make moral judgments about behavior?

The same way you do. You choose which parts of the Torah you believe and don't believe (or how you interpret various passages of the Torah) using your own judgment. The Torah states that homosexuality is wrong, yet you use your own judgment to determine that homosexuality isn't wrong.

So how exactly does the way you make moral judgments differ from how an atheist makes moral judgments?

-Bri

[cnorman18]

Why do you put in the caveat "absent consequences"?

What I was thinking was that in a situation where one knows one is likely to get caught, the probable consquences would be likely to prevent one from doing it. Ethics kick in when one is in a position to steal and no one would know. As somebody or other said, "Character is what you do when no one is looking."

I'd suggest consequences go a long way into naturally governing peoples behaviour. Can stealing be listed absolutely as being "right" or "wrong"?

That would be my question, in part.

Could it ever apply to all scenario's? In general, as a large community of people its overall better not to steal from each other, so as to promote a better social cohesion and cooperation which in itself is beneficial.

I was sort of thinking along "social contract" lines myself, yes.

It doesn't mean you can't do it, or shouldn't, or won't. Merely that in general, its better not too, and having been raised in a culture or community or belonging to a group of people cooperating for mutual benefit, its generally agreed that its counter-productive and hence discouraged.

Do we really need any higher level justification than that?

I find when discussing morales and ethics, people tend to focus on the negatives. If no morales, then what prevents me to do A, B, or C. Well without morales with motivates you to doing good things D, E, or F? Social and communal benefit.

So there's really no such thing as "right" and "wrong"; those are just shorthand for "mutually beneficial" and "counterproductive"?

I suppose that's reasonable, but only if one defines "society" as "humankind." Otherwise, what would prevent one from stealing as opportunity permits, or ignoring the chance to do "good," if one is "out of town," so to speak?

[articulett]

I think we evolved to be moral creatures... to absorb the morals and expectations of our culture; I have no desire to steal. I wouldn't feel good about myself. I get joy when I make me laugh or gain understanding or provide a listening ear. My dog seems eager to please without any direction...

But more than that... I just don't think religion helps anyone behave better. How could their be pedophila in the clergy if threats of hell were so useful. Where is the evidence that religion provides people with a good rubric. It is secular societies that are the healthiest--not he religious ones. http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

All morality clearly comes from and is judged by humans. Why pretend it comes from god or divine sources. Laws and societies are won't work without these codifications... but we aren't the only creatures who have evolved these skills. Moreover, mammal need to be able to care for and protect the vulnerable-- at least mothers do... those who didn't have these qualities wouldn't have been so successful in passing on their genes.

I never understood how people think they get their morality from religion. I think they've just been taught to think that. All morality is sort of cherry picked from what people hear and read and interpret of whatever texts they subscribe to or gurus they follow. There is no evidence that it's divine or that any invisible person is out there judging us. I can't do thinks to other sentient beings that I would not want to experience myself-- it hurts me--literally... maybe it's excess mirror neurons or hormones, but I remember being this way as a small child. I have had injustices done to me by the religious who tell me how good they are because they know god is watching-- yet even with no god watching, I know not to treat people the way they have treated me. I just think religion blinds people to their own arrogance and judgment and self absorption. Maybe not always. But I'm not sure it ever makes anybody better people-- people who make the world a better place for this life... the only one we know for sure exists.

I hear that morality question so much that I can only conclude that people really must be brainwashed to conclude that religion is necessary for morality. The evidence just isn't there. I think it makes people feel moral while being blind to the ways they hurt others. So often religious people seem to mean "do unto others" only when it's people that believe as they do. So often they seem to think you should be grateful for their opinions and judgments while never even asking you yours and accusing you of all sorts of nasty returns when you respond in the exact same manner as they do.

I guess I feel like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg

And since atheists don't exhibit any more immorality by any ways we can measure (prison sentences, torture, bigotry, etc.)-- it seems they are able to control their behavior without an invisible spy and threats of eternal damnation.

[articulett]

So there's really no such thing as "right" and "wrong"; those are just shorthand for "mutually beneficial" and "counterproductive"?

I suppose that's reasonable, but only if one defines "society" as "humankind." Otherwise, what would prevent one from stealing as opportunity permits, or ignoring the chance to do "good," if one is "out of town," so to speak?

Even if there were some outside entity deciding what was right or wrong-- there is no way to know whether the Muslims are tied into that entity or the Moonies. No one agrees. Everyone is sure they "know" what is "right" and "wrong" per their guru, religion, scripture, or whatever. But there is no agreement-- and much suffering caused in the name of some "higher good". How do you have a rational discussion with someone who has faith as to what an invisible immeasurable entity thinks is right or wrong? And are you will to let someone else's god decide for you? Because lots of gods seem eager to have the vast majority of people believe one way-- to not do so it to not be "saved".

[articulett]

Interesting post, articulett.

This has been discussed at length on other threads. A god that interacts with the physical universe is not necessarily testable, particularly if it is also omnipotent. Such a god could avoid detection if it so chose.

Yes, but you expect your opinion to be respected and heard more than you respect and hear other peoples' opinions. Sure that is possible. So are fairies. So are engrams. No one can disprove a negative and every woo has their apologetics.


Beliefs can be either fact or opinion. So what part of "a god exists" or "no gods exist" are facts rather than opinion? If they aren't fact, then I'm happy to hear that they aren't much of a problem for most skeptics. If that is the case, then we are in agreement.

When opinions are made as though they are claims of fact or a god is presumed that interacts with this world-- that is something you can test. Most gods are semantic vagaries... people avoid defining them for the same reason people makes excuses not to take the MDC. Vagaries leave a lot of leeway for inference, semantics, and apologetics. Scientific testing does not.


Until there is evidence that something exists or doesn't exist, the belief that it does or does not is only opinion. I have no problem with skeptics having either the opinion that it exists or doesn't exist. If that's what you're saying then we're in agreement.
No, until there is evidence that something is more concrete than known delusions-- it's far more rational to conclude it is a delusion. We have lots of evidence that people have delusions about gods... we have no evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist absent a brain. Whether any particular god exists or not is a claim of fact-- whether it can be known or not. If a god does or doesn't exist, that fact is the same for everyone. To conclude that any god is likely to exist is not nearly as likely to be correct as to conclude that one does not. We know for absolute certain that many religions and gods and such are misperceptions, delusions, manipulations, propaganda, etc. It's infinitely more likely that any particular god fits into that category then it is to be the immeasurable invisible creator of the universe that is indistinguishable from all those other gods as far as the evidence goes. To assume that both are equally likely is highly irrational. And yet, that is the conclusion of most theists.


The intelligent life question will have an answer only if intelligent life exist, and we happen to encounter it. If there is no intelligent life outside of our solar system, or intelligent beings are so far away that we'll never encounter them, or intelligent beings are actively trying to avoid detection, we will likely never have an answer.

That is precisely the dilemma we face with gods. If one exists, we may never know it until one makes itself known to us. If none exists, we will never know it.

Your analogy fails here in a very essential way. We know a lot about life... how it evolves, the chemicals that make it up... we know that it can happen, because it HAS happened... we know that there are trillions of stars all with potential planets around them... it makes sense to conclude that some sort of life is likely to be out there--even if we never know it. But we don't know that about any gods. We do know that people make up this kind of stuff-- and have for all recorded history. We understand a lot about how and why. It's a great way to manipulate others for one. But we can also see that it is all based on faith and feelings-- not facts-- and we know that faith and feelings are very bad ways to find truths. We know for absolute certain that humans are easy to fool. The fact that these two claims are similar to you shows sloppy thinking on your part... and I believe religion encourages this sort of sloppy thinking. We know life exists. We don't know that consciousness can exist outside a living brain. We know that many many people have been wrong about such claims-- we know the human brain confabulates explanations when none are available and clings to ridiculous explanations in absence of actual knowledge.


I agree. But of course that doesn't prevent a skeptic from having an opinion one way or the other, even when they don't know for sure. A belief in light of not knowing for certain is exactly what an opinion is. Theists often use the term "faith-based belief" to signify the same thing (otherwise, they would call it a "fact-based belief").

Yes. And we recognize those as opinions. But skeptics don't usually think faith and feelings are a means of knowledge. But it's the only way to "know" of a god. And people don't claim to just "believe"-- they claim to KNOW. Most skeptics are probably of the opinion that it's irrational to believe that something exists when there is no evidence that such a thing exists and lots of evidence that people have mistakingly believed such things existed (Heaven's gate, etc.). Everyone who believes anything about a god, must concede that the majority of believers in history have been mistaken. Surely no one thinks that people were sacrificing virgins to their god in days past to help the crops grow, right? Lots of humans have been wrong. But there is no evidence that any of them are right-- that anyone has access to higher truths-- that there even are divine truths to be had. And all believers are asserting that there are-- and concluding that they have such. Not the minority. The majority. All believers think faith is good, don't they? A skeptic usually says good for what?

Why don't you apply the same skepticism about your god that you do to Scientology or fairies? You skipped over that question. Why does it bug you when a skeptic says that, though you may be a skeptic, you don't seem to apply that skepticism to certain areas of your life. Why don't believers test the null hypothesis? Why do they try to get others to believe that their woo is just as likely to be true as a non believers dismissal of woo claims?


That's quite a generalization there, and doesn't apply to all believers nor all religions. Actually, the majority of your post seems to be generalizations that seem to apply only towards a vast minority of believers.
That's an opinion that I suspect most people here don't share. Every believer thinks that they have "the truth"-- meaning that all those who believe differently are "misguided" as are those who don't believe. Why believe it and argue for it unless you think it's true... or good for something, right?


First of all, you seem to be making some huge assumptions about my personal beliefs (unless you are using "you" in the generic sense).

Maybe so-- because you make the same errors of logic, the same snarky comments and show the same desire to have your opinion respected without offering the reciprocal. Most believers are vague about their beliefs, because they want to come off as rational... but they have the same methods and use the same arguments and get defensive in the same way and react the same way to detailed explanations to their questions. They insult those who might teach them something and seem to have an attitude that we should be thankful for their teachings.


Second of all, I can think of no definition for "irrational" that would include the opinion that there is a god, but not the opinion that there are no gods.

I can. Irrational is believing something to be true even though that something is indistinguishable from known delusions and not supported by any measurable evidence.

Third, I'm not certain that theists care as much as you apparently think they do whether you respect them or their beliefs or not. However, not respecting someone because they have a different opinion than you do might, in fact, be irrational.

I think YOU care. It sounds like you are upset. I don't care what theists think anymore than they care what I think. I don't think faith deserves respect just because it's "faith". I don't think faith is a respect-worthy quality. I think it's very rational to respect peoples opinions to the same extent that they respect mine.


Then please redefine it for us so that it's not such a useless term. I suspect that you will define it in such a way that a theist can be a skeptic (that would be the "fuzzy" definition you seem to take offense to), or you will define it in such a way that nobody can be a skeptic. Nobody with an opinion, anyway.

What?? You're the one who gave it a vague definition. I thought voidx was great-- and others. Skepticism is a method. Generally it's used to separate the truth from everything else. We can base our conclusions about important things on where the evidence leads-- and settle for not knowing when there is no evidence. There's lots of opinions and beliefs out there... what better way to separate the wheat from the chafe then evidence? I can't imagine why anyone would want to believe something that is indistinguishable from known delusions. And I really can't stomach the fact that they would expect some sort of respect for that. I don't see them offering that respect to those who believe differently or the known delusional or the non-believer. In fact, I think such people are responsible for bigotry towards atheists and this weird judgmental assumption that they are more moral. Where's the evidence?

Oh, I see! If a theist considers all available evidence and comes to a different conclusion than you do, they're necessarily using confirmation bias and therefore aren't applying skepticism!

Oh, and believers tend to be really bad at humor and sarcasm as well as analogies, but they seem to imagine themselves clever... at least that's what I observe. They seem impervious to whether anyone else shares such inflated opinions of them. A theist considers all lack of evidence and uses semantics and apologetics to assume something exists that is indistinguishable from known delusions--schizophrenic, drug induced, cult induced, hypnogogic dreams, and otherwise. They never seem to ask if they could be fooling themselves... they don't want to know... they are doing what all believers of delusions do-- it's a well studied psychological tendency. It's called confirmation bias. Skeptics are usually aware that humans can be fooled--often they have been fooled... they don't want to be fooled... and so they tend to go overboard to test the null hypothesis... to make sure they aren't fooling themselves. That's what skepticism is about. It's about making sure our most closely held beliefs are true and useful and not misguided delusions. At least that's what it is about to me. I'm a grown up. I'm tired of "believing" stuff. I want to find out all the true and useful and marvelous information that humans are discovering and not be sidetracked by the goofy and childish and the known ways humans fool themselves. When someone makes themselves believe in the existence of things for which there is no evidence at all-- that is confirmation bias. When they construct their arguments and analogies so as to prop up that belief and negate, dismiss, ignore, or attack the beare

[nosho]

That's what skepticism is about. It's about making sure our most closely held beliefs are true and useful and not misguided delusions. At least that's what it is about to me.

I think skepticism is more about being wary of closely held beliefs in the first place, and realizing that the truth is not always what it seems to be, even if we have a closely held belief that we think we have absolutely verified.

I think it's also about realizing that "misguided delusions" are what we have before we know better, and also realizing that in the future we might know better than we do now. In other words, having some "misguided delusions" is part of the human experience. (Those who have a closely held belief that they have eradicated all of their misguided delusions will disagree.)

[voidx]

What I was thinking was that in a situation where one knows one is likely to get caught, the probable consquences would be likely to prevent one from doing it. Ethics kick in when one is in a position to steal and no one would know. As somebody or other said, "Character is what you do when no one is looking."

I would still maintain its a system of weighing the perceived benefits. You don't know absolutely for certain that you won't get caught. So the consequences are still a factor. We hear of people all the time that succumb to the choice to do so. Religious or not.

To be honest, there is potential for theft and other things to be individually beneficial. Otherwise people wouldn't try it at all. In any large community you will find people that skirt the general principles of cooperation that make that community sustainable and viable. And to a certain extent, there is opportunity to gain personally from skirting those values, or setting them aside from time to time to do something selfish.

I think people only really come forth with a sense of generosity and cooperation because its still to our personal benefit. Being generous and "morale" in a culture promotes more of the same, of which very likely will be a direct benefit to you in the future, and to your direct descendants and family. A culture or community will generally have some loose large overview of common goals which will also lead people, in general, to more often than not cooperate rather than being selfish or immorale. Its still selfish on each individuals part, just more productive selfishness :D.


That would be my question, in part.

I don't think they can be defined in any absolute global sense. But that's not to say some things aren't more right than others. As a global culture we do have some over-riding concepts that humanity as whole holds as good ideals. Basic human rights and the like. But I think the further you drill down into specifics of right and wrong, the more you'll find peoples opinions diverging and seperating due to all sorts of influences. Religious, cultural, etc.


I was sort of thinking along "social contract" lines myself, yes.

Again, I think people behave morally as much because of the perceived benefits, as for the feared consequences. but we tend to focus on the consequences keeping us on the straight and narrow.

It just makes good productive sense to cooperate. It leaves opportunities for selfishness, and not all people are of a mentality to commit to such social morales. But I take it as a strength of the perceived benefits, that communities can withstand acts of selfishness and immoral behaviour and correct for them in those that do not follow along. If everyone behaved immorally, as defined by that culture/community, then it would break down, and all the perceived benefits would begin to disappear. However, at somepoint, when everyone is being selfish and immorale, there suddenly become very sharp benefits again to joining a group, small as it might be and cooperating for mutual benefit against all those being selfish. Its a pendulum that in many ways is self-correcting. If it swings to far, then the community may not survive and may dissolve and die out. Obviously human culture is much more complex that that type of simply example, but I think the idea has some truth to it.

Dawkins lays out that idea in "The Selfish Gene" and I think it makes sense.


So there's really no such thing as "right" and "wrong"; those are just shorthand for "mutually beneficial" and "counterproductive"?

That's the basic idea, although I'd be cautious about going to far one way or the other with those labels. We do develop concepts of right and wrong, but they end up being much more conditional, out of practical necessity I'd say. And their created based on subjective/objective measurements of whats mutually beneficial and whats counter productive in any given culture.


I suppose that's reasonable, but only if one defines "society" as "humankind." Otherwise, what would prevent one from stealing as opportunity permits, or ignoring the chance to do "good," if one is "out of town," so to speak?
Nothing prevents you from doing those things. And some people clearly do do them. And some people would not even see anything wrong about it. Others would steal, knowing its wrong, but thinking there's a good enough chance they can get away with it and weighing the consequences act against socially "accepted" ideals and behavious. Some might feel that those things are owed them as their privilege as part of that culture. Others might feel that the community and cultural in practice has dealt them a short hand and their in the right to go forth and take it.

What prevents any particular person from doing immorale things is their own strength of conviction of upholding the ideals of a particular cultural ideal, and the decision to hold out for mutual communcal benefits rather than short term individual benefits. And a persons own particular situation. Some people become desperate, do things clearly in violation of their own ideals because they feel forced into a situation where they cannot depend or what for communal benefits, but rather short-term individual benefits in order to survive.

[Bri]

voidx,

First let me say that in reading your post, it sounds as though we agree for the most part on the most important points.

To me skepticism is the process of honest inquiry into any idea, with the knowledge of one's own personal bias in hand and to actively evaluation all strengths and weakness' of that idea to see if its consistency and logic hold true.

I can agree with that. Similar to "questioning one's own beliefs" I think.

The process varies. Discussions with others, research material, application of ones own logic, reading of counter-points to any idea. Discussing the idea openly with others to see what assumptions you may unwittingly be making, and then re-evaluating them to see if their still valid.

Every person is going to assume their own internal process of skeptical evaluation is fine. Its our personal bias. What I'm saying is that if we talk and discuss about how we have all evaluated a particular idea, we can come to some objective conclusions about which process of inquiry is perhaps more thorough than another. How many assumptions are made that are unjustified? Are they acknowledged or glazed over?

I agree.

Which was mainly my point. If an idea cannot have a test defined for it in the first place, then I think we're fair in saying that believing in it is less logical/rational/skeptical than believing in something that can be tested, but still may not yet be conclusive.

OK, but we're not talking about ideas that can be tested. The question is whether belief in something that cannot be tested is less skeptical than having no opinion whatsoever about that idea.

Note that this does not prevent one from holding a belief or opinion on that idea, so lets just discard that canard now. You are freely open to hold it. Just as anyone else is freely open to question just how logical/rational/skeptical it is of you to have reached that opinion and advocate it. How logical, how rational, how skeptical. Shades of gray, not black and white.

This is where I have trouble understanding you. You seem to be implying that belief in an idea which cannot be tested is less skeptical than having no opinion whatsoever about that idea. But then you say that we are free to hold opinions about ideas which cannot be tested. Why should one have an opinion about something if that opinion is less skeptical than having no opinion at all? Again, it sounds like you're saying that having no belief whatsoever for or against the idea would be the most skeptical position when there is no conclusive evidence available.

I'm saying that taking a stance in support of an opinion that cannot be tested, can be argued to be less skeptical/rational/logical than someone evaluating the same idea and deciding that since it cannot be tested, that it cannot be objectively known or decided, the best idea is to, at that point in time, claim the neutral stance of "I don't know". Notice that this stance can be ammended later upon introduction of new information, or a testable hypothesis.

I have to disagree -- it seems like you're assuming a false dilemma here, because a non-neutral stance and "I don't know" are not mutually exclusive. One can say "I don't know" and still have an opinion.

Having no opinion about a topic does not make you more or less logical or skeptical towards that topic. Some would even argue that it would be impossible to have no opinion at all about a subject unless you are entirely ignorant of the subject.

Skepticism is about being realistic about the evidence for your opinion, and about being willing to adjust your beliefs as new evidence becomes available.

Your examples have gone a bit off track in my opinion. Your taking subjective ideas and trying to make them absolute. There is no "Best" candidate for all people. There is no "clear cut opinion" about abortion that works best in all situations. These are ethical/moral/subjective dilemma's.

That's exactly my point. These are examples for which there is no definitive evidence, for which there is no test. According to your criteria, the "most logical/skeptical" position in these cases would be to say "I don't know and therefore it would be illogical for me to have an opinion." I have to disagree. The most logical position would be to have an opinion, but to say that your opinion is based on more subjective reasons and is therefore subject to change if additional evidence becomes available.

The existence of God is not. Either it does exist or it doesn't.

Sure, but we don't know whether or not God exists, and therefore one can look at the evidence and come to either conclusion. Or one could look at the evidence and have no opinion at all. There is no right or wrong answer. I don't find that having no opinion at all (if that's even possible) to be any "more skeptical" or "more logical" than the other two positions, as long as one is realistic about the (lack of) evidence and is willing to change one's opinion if new evidence becomes available.

Freely interchange skeptical, rational, logical, or any other word you'd like to insert. I'm arguing about the applied degree of skepticism/rationalism/logical....ism :) to various beliefs a person might have.

Yes, and for the most part I agree with you, but you seem to be saying that for the myriad ideas for which there is little evidence, the most logical/rational position is to have no opinion at all. I think that skepticism has nothing to do with whether or not you have an opinion. In fact, I find it a bit illogical to say "I don't know for sure, therefore I'm just not going to have an opinion at all."

I'm not arguing the line of "you are skeptical about this, you are unskeptical about that." Rather it falls more in the lines of, "in talking with you about various beliefs I think you have applied less skepticism to some than others. I state this based on discussions about your beliefs and how you arrived at them and having compared them with my own evaluations of those ideas, or of the ideas you specifically have put forth, along with comparisons to a whole world of other opinions and evaluations of that similar idea by others"

I agree with that.

But again, those are issues, they are inherently subjective. They are not pertaining to the objective existence of an attribute of the known universe.

Except for issues such as whether or not intelligent life exists outside of our solar system. Again, I don't think it's necessarily illogical or particularly un-skeptical to have an opinion. I do find it a bit illogical to refrain from having an opinion one way or the other simply because we don't know and it can't be tested.

And yet all those things have objective attributes that we can weigh and measure and ponder and even test if we so choose. Your opinion of those ideas is based on something besides pure faith. And that makes a difference.

There is no evidence whatsoever that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system. In fact, we will never know unless we happen to encounter it. That intelligent life does exist is unfalsifiable and untestable, in much the same way that the existence of God is unfalsifiable and untestable.

Nonetheless, Carl Sagan was involved with SETI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI) and certainly had an opinion about the subject. I don't think that made him less skeptical than someone with no opinion whatsoever.

I never said we should. There's a difference between not always good evidence and a seeming lack of evidence overall. Your right, we cannot practically always present all the studies that have been done. But that implies that we've looked at some, that we know of the existence of evidence, should we wish to go make ourselves aware of it and knowledgable of it. Again, that is the difference.

That was my point. I was pointing out that your example regarding vaccines wasn't a good analogy because there is plenty of evidence available.

I've changed enough opinions in my lifetime that I have learned to to put a tentative note on all those things I've not thoroughly researched myself. Yes, people obviously have come to different conclusions than myself, that's obvious. Again, you've phrased it in black or white, for or against the belief in God. It lacks the middle ground, the logical neutrality of not having enough information to make a clearly rational/logical/skeptical conclusion.

I've been very clear that I'm talking about a theist or a strong atheist who understands very well that there's not enough information to make a definitive conclusion. However, I disagree if you're claiming that a theist or strong atheist cannot have a rational/logical/skeptical opinion. It is not illogical or irrational to have an opinion as long as one realizes that there isn't enough information to come to a definitive conclusion, and is willing to change one's opinion as more information becomes available.

I've not changed anything. I've always been getting at what degree of a persons skepticism is applied to their various beliefs. This freely admits that peoples own personal definition and methodology of skepticism likely vary. I'm not trying to define a global process of skepticism. Everyone defines that themselves. Its only when we talk and discuss and converse with one another that we can begin to see and compare how some methods and degrees of skeptical inquiry may be superior/inferior to others in an objective sense.

I agree.

Incorrect. I've never said belief in God applied no skeptical thought process. What I have implied is that the depth of the skeptical evaluation of the belief in God may not have been as thorough as applied to other beliefs that same person also holds.

True, the depth of the skeptical evaluation of the belief in God may not have been as thorough as applied to other beliefs that same person also holds. Or it may have, and they came to their opinion based on that evaluation.

We must acknowledge that some people have ideas or beliefs that they would simply like to be true, and experiences and evidence can be shoe-horned to confirm that belief. This is all about degree's. A persons skeptical evaluation may be very different from mine. A person's skeptical evaluations are only as good as their knowledge.

My question was: What about those who have considered the available evidence and concluded that they believe there is a god?

For those that have considered and concluded in a belief, then I ask for the rational/logical justifications that lead them to that belief. But curiously, as you mentioned previously I think, many openly say they cannot provide one. That they believe in spite of a lack of these.

Probably theists believe despite a lack of objective evidence. However, many (maybe most) seem to have rational and logical justifications for their belief, including more subjective, personal evidence.

I think one would have to show strongly the justifications for a strong conclusion in the belief in God because of what it would potentially imply.

What do you mean by "strong conclusion"? I'm talking about an opinion that God exists along with an acknowledgment that we don't know for certain that God exists and a willingness to adjust the opinion as new evidence becomes available.

So long as we also agree that should strong atheists refuse to answer the questions, that it would not in anyway release theists from answering them. That they are off the hook because of a strong atheists stubborn refusal to answer the question.

Oh, I entirely agree with that (I don't think I ever disagreed).

In short, quit worrying about all the counter positions for a moment and answer the implications of your own (theists I mean, I've no idea if you are one or not, not that it matters in this context)

Sure, but the topic of this thread was whether or not a "skeptical organization" such as the JREF should be an atheist organization. Counter-positions are crucial for determining whether a particular position (atheism) should be endorsed by a skeptical organization.

-Bri