Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists? [Archive]

-Fran-

18th November 2007, 09:36 PM

As Joe pointed out, some people believe in god knowing full well that there is no empirical evidence. I see nothing wrong with that. I do have an issue with people who argue that they believe in god based on evidence.

I usually don't have an issue with that either. However, it does strike me as a bit... odd when those same people argue against woo, and try to convince other people that their non-evidence based beliefs are wrong. Why argue with people who believe in astrology and psychics for example, in an effort to make them see that their beliefs are unsubstanciated and their "evidence" flawed... when you have such a belief yourself? So, for me it is not so much about if they admit that their belief is not based on evidence, or not... but if they have issues with other beliefs or not

I sometimes see that here on the forum, and it doesn't go together in my head, how you can be an active skeptic (as in actively arguing against woo) and at the same time be, for example, a Christian. I'm not saying that they don't do a lot of good here, and that I don't respect them as persons. I just don't quite understand it. :confused:

ETA
Just to clarify a bit. I am not saying that if you are, for example, a Christian, that you shouldn't argue against, for example, a belief in psychics. I think some with Christian beliefs around here does so very well. I just mean that for me personally, I would not be able to make that go together in my own mind, and what I don't quite understand is how it goes together in their minds. That's all.

GreNME

18th November 2007, 09:37 PM

I tend to stick to the conclusion that intellectual honesty leads to a general agnosticism on the count of religion. There are too many absolutes involved in religion that cannot be verified by measurable means, and alternatively an exercise in proving a negative (being a logical fallacy) is an unnecessary waste of energy.

But let's all be honest: our answers are going to irrevocably be influenced by our own personal conclusions on this question.

JoeEllison

18th November 2007, 09:41 PM

I sometimes see that here on the forum, and it doesn't go together in my head, how you can be an active skeptic (as in actively arguing against woo) and at the same time be, for example, a Christian. I'm not saying that they don't do a lot of good here, and that I don't respect them as persons. I just don't quite understand it. :confused:

I think it comes down to a difference between the sort of faith that presents as "it makes me feel better, so I believe it, but I don't depend on it to help me make choices in my life" and "it is absolute truth, and the basis for all of my decisions."

I guess it is a more agnostic version of religion that can allow someone to be skeptical of other woo stuff.

GreNME

18th November 2007, 09:47 PM

Most religious people aren't fundies.

-Fran-

18th November 2007, 09:51 PM

I think it comes down to a difference between the sort of faith that presents as "it makes me feel better, so I believe it, but I don't depend on it to help me make choices in my life" and "it is absolute truth, and the basis for all of my decisions."

I guess it is a more agnostic version of religion that can allow someone to be skeptical of other woo stuff.

Could be, yes. Obviously some people manage to make it go together, somehow, and as I said, it's not like I have a problem with them. But it has, many times, struck me as odd.

NorfolkAtheist

18th November 2007, 09:52 PM

I can't imagine how a pure skeptic could be anything but an atheist. That said, I'm skeptical to the idea that "pure skeptics" even exist. A theists may not be skeptical of all deities, but I wouldn't say that that alone should prevent him/her from being considered generally skeptical.

Evil Roy Slade

18th November 2007, 09:52 PM

Skeptic Ginger

18th November 2007, 09:56 PM

Yes (to the OP question)

I know it is not the view of everyone, especially since it doesn't help convert the non-skeptics, but I see no rational way to put one set of god beliefs in a special category.

GreNME

18th November 2007, 10:32 PM

ImaginalDisc

18th November 2007, 10:35 PM

saizai

18th November 2007, 11:31 PM

There are theistic agnostics.

I find making a distinction between 'belief' and 'knowledge' a bit strange, but eh, it happens.

I know a couple people I'd call intelligent skeptics, who nevertheless find magical worldviews to be useful; they acknowledge that these worldviews are not necessarily grounded in logic so much as feeling/intuition. For them, this is functional; the magical worldview is pleasant, gives things a certain amount of vibrancy, and (given the skeptical limits) doesn't interfere with their day-to-day life in any way. (These people aren't, for example, what I'd call 'superstitious' or the like.)

So I'd say it's quite possible to be skeptical and a non-atheist. Try not to assume that everyone who thinks critically necessarily comes to the same conclusions (or worldviews) as you do; that's a very poisonous assumption to make.

ImaginalDisc - Dowsing and astrology are testable, have been tested, and have shown no results. Therefore it is rational to conclude that they are false, or that their effect power is smaller than that measurable by the tests done. Not all theisms are testable, though, and one has to be agnostic about that which is unfalsifiable. That means basically you ignore both the possibility of it being true and it being false. :)

Georg

18th November 2007, 11:43 PM

To those who say 'yes': why? Or the longer version: why do you think that atheism is a better fit for a skeptic than a general agnosticism? Is there an inherent value that being atheist in approach has over being agnostic in approach for the hypothetical skeptic?

I do not understand the question since you can easily be agnostic and atheist. There is no contradiction. Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism with knowledge. I lack a belief in god(s), therefore I´m an atheist. Do I know for sure, like 100%, that there are no gods? No, I don´t and I don´t claim that, therefore I am an agnostic. That makes me an agnostic atheist, and after reading hundreds of posts regarding that topic on this forum, I´d say a lot of skeptics here would fall in that category.

Skeptic Ginger

18th November 2007, 11:53 PM

To those who say 'yes': why? Or the longer version: why do you think that atheism is a better fit for a skeptic than a general agnosticism? Is there an inherent value that being atheist in approach has over being agnostic in approach for the hypothetical skeptic?If you only take the purist approach that you are agnostic about invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti then you can make your case. The problem I have is threefold:

1) There is no evidence of gods so why entertain the idea in the first place? Why not just say there can always be new things we have yet to come across?

2) The current god definitions and descriptions defy everything we know about the Universe so far.

3) Not only is there no evidence of gods, there is a good case to be made that gods are man-made constructs. The evidence points to that. I see no reason not to draw conclusions from the available evidence. I draw conclusions about other things based on the evidence.

Once you take the "special" case out of god beliefs, there is no case for agnosticism.

Skeptic Ginger

18th November 2007, 11:55 PM

Janot

19th November 2007, 12:12 AM

1) There is no evidence of gods so why entertain the idea in the first place? Why not just say there can always be new things we have yet to come across?
Could not one argue that this is a belief that something unknown can exist, and that searching for it is as much of a religous as scientific activity? Or is this just semantics? I only ask because the opening post talks of 'belief in god' and I'm not sure how a sceptic would define this.

CFLarsen

19th November 2007, 12:27 AM

The question is:

Is it possible to be religious and not claim evidence of your god(s)?

Skeptic Ginger

19th November 2007, 12:52 AM

Could not one argue that this is a belief that something unknown can exist, and that searching for it is as much of a religous as scientific activity? Or is this just semantics? I only ask because the opening post talks of 'belief in god' and I'm not sure how a sceptic would define this.Of course many things exist we have yet to know about. It would be foolish not to 'believe' that. The problem is once you add a name and/or description to your belief, you are no longer merely saying "something unknown".

Big Les

19th November 2007, 02:25 AM

Exactly - sceptics tend to give a free pass to religious people, those who are otherwise sceptical in particular, as long as they don't make any claims about their god having any measurable effect on the real world.

But isn't that still a claim, in a roundabout way? As skeptigirl says, of course there are many things we know little to nothing about - but why assign any of the historical baggage to these things? Why define them in the context of religion, with nothing but anecdotal evidence to do on? In any other context a sceptic would be called to task for this. It's all very well saying that it's not based on any rationality or falsifiability, but isn't that just a massive cop-out? You're still believing in something supernatural, without evidence, and as such any exhortation to a "woo" to stop doing likewise is pretty hypocritical.

I've never understood religion-exempting scepticism either, and see it as a bit of a proverbial "elephant in the living-room".

CFLarsen

19th November 2007, 03:13 AM

Exactly - sceptics tend to give a free pass to religious people, those who are otherwise sceptical in particular, as long as they don't make any claims about their god having any measurable effect on the real world.

But isn't that still a claim, in a roundabout way? As skeptigirl says, of course there are many things we know little to nothing about - but why assign any of the historical baggage to these things? Why define them in the context of religion, with nothing but anecdotal evidence to do on? In any other context a sceptic would be called to task for this. It's all very well saying that it's not based on any rationality or falsifiability, but isn't that just a massive cop-out? You're still believing in something supernatural, without evidence, and as such any exhortation to a "woo" to stop doing likewise is pretty hypocritical.

Aye, there in lies the rub(adub): What is it, exactly, that is so supernatural?

I've never understood religion-exempting scepticism either, and see it as a bit of a proverbial "elephant in the living-room".

It's not religion-extempting. It's simply acknowledging that skepticism doesn't concern itself with non-testable claims.

Big Les

19th November 2007, 03:32 AM

Aye, there in lies the rub(adub): What is it, exactly, that is so supernatural?

You know, the whole "deity" thing.

It's not religion-extempting. It's simply acknowledging that skepticism doesn't concern itself with non-testable claims.

I understand this from a third-person perspective, however the person holding that belief and making that implicit claim isn't themselves being very sceptical, are they?

CFLarsen

19th November 2007, 04:01 AM

You know, the whole "deity" thing.

I agree that it is supernatural to say "I believe in (insert deity), because of [something that influences the natural world]".

But what is so supernatural about "I believe in (insert deity), but I don't claim any evidence"?

I understand this from a third-person perspective, however the person holding that belief and making that implicit claim isn't themselves being very sceptical, are they?

Yes, they are: They have realized that while it is a silly belief without any evidence, it comforts them.

OnlyTellsTruths

19th November 2007, 04:44 AM

Being on the top can be a bit boring, perhaps leading people to want to believe in something more complex than them. Does it matter if it's aliens or fictional super-beings? Does it matter if the super-beings are outright fiction or sold as truth? Does it even matter if we don't have proof?

For instance we don't have any more or less proof of the X-Men being real than other religions deities, but we can be pretty sure neither are. On the other hand we don't know if alien life, more or less evolved than us, is real, but we can be pretty sure one or both are.

Aren't there varying levels of "no evidence"? Wouldn't it be better to specify if it is "no evidence" or "no solid OR circumstantial evidence"?

Couldn't it even be ranked in an order of crazy beliefs? From most crazy to least:

1: Believing in presented fictional super-beings.
2: Believing in religious super-beings.
3: Believing in extra-terrestrial super-beings.

1 and 2 only being different in the ratio of how many lies are used in the distribution. 3 actually having a morsel of evidence diluted with it's lies. So people who believe something like Tolkien is real would easily believe in religion or aliens, but the scale only goes one way (i.e. someone who believes in aliens would most likely still be hard pressed in believing in hobbits).

Perhaps people would prefer to believe in something more powerful than us so they have an excuse to not better themselves compared to each other. Is this more of the dreadful submission to dominance instinct?

To summarize in respect to the OP, there are varying levels and degrees of both skepticism and evidence.

Dancing David

19th November 2007, 04:47 AM

Hmm, I would say that scepticism is a tool and that som people apply the tools to only certain thoughts. So while the ideal sceptic might be an atheist, some people are and some people aren't.

Most sceptics have areas they don't apply the tool to. Ideas like the benefits of the free markets, personal liberty and human rights for example.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 05:04 AM

ImaginalDisc - Dowsing and astrology are testable, have been tested, and have shown no results. Therefore it is rational to conclude that they are false, or that their effect power is smaller than that measurable by the tests done. Not all theisms are testable, though, and one has to be agnostic about that which is unfalsifiable. That means basically you ignore both the possibility of it being true and it being false. :)

Untestable claims are mere sophism, but religions are seldom based solely on untestable claims. Prayer has no efficacy. Miracles have no basis.

Big Les

19th November 2007, 05:32 AM

I agree that it is supernatural to say "I believe in (insert deity), because of [something that influences the natural world]".

But what is so supernatural about "I believe in (insert deity), but I don't claim any evidence"?

The mere existence of such a deity is by definition supernatural.

Yes, they are: They have realized that while it is a silly belief without any evidence, it comforts them.

But if they realise that, how can they be said to actually believe it?

Damien Evans

19th November 2007, 05:53 AM

Rather than solve the problem posed by the OP perhaps we could just eliminate it by electing a god for atheists to honour!

I hereby nominate Ma'at, Egyptian goddess of Truth, Balance, Order.

Yeah! Go Ma'at!:)

Nay, I vote for Aphrodite! (hey, if we're going to honour a god, it may as well be a hot one!)

Jekyll

19th November 2007, 05:58 AM

ImaginalDisc - Dowsing and astrology are testable, have been tested, and have shown no results. Therefore it is rational to conclude that they are false, or that their effect power is smaller than that measurable by the tests done. Not all theisms are testable, though, and one has to be agnostic about that which is unfalsifiable. That means basically you ignore both the possibility of it being true and it being false. :)

This is exactly the same as God. Belief in a non-interventionist God is the same as believing that Dowsing works, it just has a zero "effect power" (that jargon can't be correct).

I think Maatorc (not sure about the spelling) who hangs out on the forums actually believes this, so it's not just a stupid hypothetical.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

19th November 2007, 06:00 AM

To me, being a skeptic means formulating opinions and thoughts based on critical and rational thinking, logic, facts, common sense...all unbiasedly and with complete openess and honesty.
This is the old question of whether someone labeling himself skeptic has to be a complete skeptic with regard to every subject. Your first reaction might be "of course," but then you're asking for an inquisition committee to investigate your life to make sure there's nothing lurking in the closets.

I see no advantage to inquiring into the level of skepticism of individual people, only in the subjects being discussed.

~~ Paul

GreNME

19th November 2007, 06:59 AM

I'm going to try to get all my responses into one post. Try to bear with it.

It is as foolish to be agnostic about religion as it is to be agnostic about dowsing, astrology, and the Easter bunny, and for the same reasons.

Saying something is so doesn't make it so. Can you quantify it?

----

There are theistic agnostics.

This is true, and sort of what I'm getting at regarding the ability to have sufficient intellectual honesty while at the same time possibly holding a religious ideology. I think I may be coming at my argument at a disadvantage because I am not theistic, nor do I hold any religious belief, but I do see room for the intellectual honesty required to remain skeptical of subjects while still holding religious beliefs.

----

I do not understand the question since you can easily be agnostic and atheist. There is no contradiction. Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism with knowledge. I lack a belief in god(s), therefore I´m an atheist. Do I know for sure, like 100%, that there are no gods? No, I don´t and I don´t claim that, therefore I am an agnostic. That makes me an agnostic atheist, and after reading hundreds of posts regarding that topic on this forum, I´d say a lot of skeptics here would fall in that category.

Yes, but "most other people are" is neither logically sound nor necessarily intellectually honest. I also hold no religious belief and remain generally agnostic, but I think the distinction I am talking about regarding agnosticism (as opposed to atheism) and religion might be tangental to the original post. I think it's germane to the question, though, and a worthwhile distinction.

----

If you only take the purist approach that you are agnostic about invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti then you can make your case.

I don't see why such a case couldn't be made, though. Since neither invisible pink unicorns nor flying spaghetti (unless it's thrown) affects me, I don't see a need to expend any energy accepting or denying it. If it's brought up as an excuse, then it can be challenged to see if there is any testable measure. If none are present, then it doesn't work as an excuse.

The problem I have is threefold:

1) There is no evidence of gods so why entertain the idea in the first place? Why not just say there can always be new things we have yet to come across?

Being agnostic doesn't mean entertaining ideas arbitrarily.

2) The current god definitions and descriptions defy everything we know about the Universe so far.

The wording you use, whether intentional or not, leaves open a door for a dogma to replace religious (or theistic) dogma. That's my main problem with taking an absolutist stance. I agree about religion falling short of explanation of the universe now that we are able to explore and observe to such a great degree, but I tend to stop short of saying all religious ideologies 'defy' our growing scientific knowledge because as far as I am aware religion is not science.

3) Not only is there no evidence of gods, there is a good case to be made that gods are man-made constructs. The evidence points to that. I see no reason not to draw conclusions from the available evidence.

Please. My main hobby is lay study of ancient history. I don't argue with the first three sentences, but the last is no less absolutist that religious statements as I interpret it.

I draw conclusions about other things based on the evidence.

The trouble is that in most cases evidence is found to either prove or disprove something. When it comes to people's religious faith evidence or lack thereof doesn't always necessarily work that way. That doesn't mean that someone of faith can't be capable of the intellectual honesty to remain skeptical of subjects in sufficient quantities to be indistinguishable from anyone else in testing said subjects.

Once you take the "special" case out of god beliefs, there is no case for agnosticism.

And you don't find this statement at all similar to those of religious fundementalists? No offense, but replace a few words there and the sentence is exactly the kind Ray Comfort uses.

----

Untestable claims are mere sophism, but religions are seldom based solely on untestable claims. Prayer has no efficacy. Miracles have no basis.

Have you ever heard of the efficacy of placebo or suggestion? Any (social) scientist worth their salt recognizes the effectiveness of both.

----

I see no advantage to inquiring into the level of skepticism of individual people, only in the subjects being discussed.

I think I agree with this most. For example, I don't consider myself 'a skeptic'. I consider myself skeptical of a great many things when I have not seen, heard, or read about tests of their veracity, but I don't self-identify as a skeptic.

By the way: I am challenging the assumption that atheism is most desirable for skepticism not because I think there is any veracity to religious beliefs, but because I tend to generally see a large degree of intellectual snobbery take hold where religion is concerned and I find that tends to detract from the conversation.

Bikewer

19th November 2007, 07:03 AM

A respected (but passed-on) friend of mine once said that the ultimate end of Protestantism must be atheism.....

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 07:09 AM

Have you ever heard of the efficacy of placebo or suggestion? Any (social) scientist worth their salt recognizes the effectiveness of both.

Firstly, please don't propagate a misunderstanding of the placebo effect. Double blind drug tests use placebos because there is a documented effect on the health of a patient when they believe they are receiving treatment. You know when I believe when I'm receiving treatment? When I'm receiving treatment. Do you understand the implications of the placebo effect? Real treatment is efficacious over and beyond the placebo effect which arises from receiving treatment at all.

Secondly, please try to find any evidence to support any religious claim. I would happily change my views in the face of evidence. In the entire span of human history, science has been amassing evidence to help us understand the natural word and at no point has the most parsimonious explanation been religious.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 07:28 AM

Firstly, please don't propagate a misunderstanding of the placebo effect.

What the heck? You drew one hell of a conclusion from a single sentence.

Double blind drug tests use placebos because there is a documented effect on the health of a patient when they believe they are receiving treatment.

Um, bingo.

You know when I believe when I'm receiving treatment? When I'm receiving treatment. Do you understand the implications of the placebo effect? Real treatment is efficacious over and beyond the placebo effect which arises from receiving treatment at all.

Actually, "real treatment" depends on the condition being treated and can, at times, include the use of a placebo-like benign medicine or activity.

Secondly, please try to find any evidence to support any religious claim. I would happily change my views in the face of evidence. In the entire span of human history, science has been amassing evidence to help us understand the natural word and at no point has the most parsimonious explanation been religious.

I strongly suggest you avoid the "jumping to conclusions" bit with me. I have not, am not, and will not be arguing for or against anyone's religious beliefs.

Cleon

19th November 2007, 07:29 AM

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 07:32 AM

I strongly suggest you avoid the "jumping to conclusions" bit with me. I have not, am not, and will not be arguing for or against anyone's religious beliefs.

You most certainly are, regardless of what you meant to say. The only reason to bring up the placebo when someone mentions evidence of religious claims is to try to fool people into thinking it is somehow relevant. When a drug is tested, it is tested to see if the results it yields are distinguishable from chance, given identical conditions. The point of a placebo is to establish a control with identical conditions as the treatment tested. Thus far, all investigations into prayer have found it yields results which are indistinguishable from what we expect from chance. The same is said for the ability of dowsers to find gold.

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 07:44 AM

If you don't agree with our beliefs, hey, that's fine. We're not asking you to. You won't find us claiming that we have evidence for our beliefs. You won't find us handing out tracts. And you definitely won't find us defending fundamentalists or Biblical literalism.

But we do often find some of you arguing against other people who hold other beliefs that are not your beliefs, and yes, sometimes I do find that slightly hypocritical, or at least it doesn't make sense to me in some cases.

Personally I don't think you must be in a certain way to be "allowed" to call yourself a skeptic. You want to combine skepticism with a theistic belief it's OK with me. Obviously many of you do good things here. But why can't people who are not able to make these two things go together not ask and discuss about how you make it go together? :confused:

Rasmus

19th November 2007, 07:52 AM

I find it fascinating that so many people think they have the authority to decide who is and isn't a Skeptic (tm, apparently).

What's wrong with trying to define one's terms then?

Speaking as unofficial representative for the skeptics who dare to harbor a belief in God, I will only say that we neither seek nor require your approval.Good for you.

You will still see us at TAM, you will still us working to promote the JREF and its goals--to say nothing of the Skeptics Society, CSI, NCSE, and the countless other organizations (foreign and domestic) that promote science, reason, and critical thinking. I must have missed those posts suggesting you shouldn't be doing any of these things. (I am sure they exist elsewhere, though.)

If you don't agree with our beliefs, hey, that's fine. We're not asking you to. You won't find us claiming that we have evidence for our beliefs. You won't find us handing out tracts. And you definitely won't find us defending fundamentalists or Biblical literalism. We believe because we want to, that's all.That is precisely what those labelled as "woos" around here do, though: Believe something simply because it'd be nice if it was true.

Maybe that makes us "weak" in your eyes, but you know--I can live with that. I'd rather be "weak" than be arrogant enough to declare that people who don't agree with my opinion on the matter aren't really "Skeptics."It's a label. It might mean different things to different people. I don't understand how scepticism is compatible with belief in dowsing, psychics or gods. How can you use the same procedures to decide that dowsing or psychics are false and religion x is true?

Martin Gardner is a skeptic. He believes in God.
Hal Bidlack is a skeptic. He believes in God.
I am a skeptic. I believe in God.

Deal with it.

So, it is okay for you to declare who is a sceptic, but not for everyone else?

Words mean things. We can certainly argue about what the word "sceptic" means. Maybe we won't be able to reach an agreement. But if we do, it should be relatively simple to see if, generally, a theist falls under that definition.

Can I be a vegetarian and still eat beef? (After all, I am not touching fish or seafood, pork, game or poultry.)

Would it be arrogant if someone pointed out to me that I am not a vegetarian simply because I do eat meat?

Cleon

19th November 2007, 07:54 AM

But why can't people who are not able to make these two things go together not ask and discuss about how you make it go together? :confused:

That's not what people in this thread are doing. They're not "asking" any such thing. They are declaring that people who choose to believe aren't skeptics.

And that's arrogant horse manure, any way you slice it.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 07:54 AM

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 07:55 AM

This has always bothered me. People claiming to be skeptics who hold out in their belief in god.

I postulate that someone can't be a skeptic and have any true belief in any god(s).

To me, being a skeptic means formulating opinions and thoughts based on critical and rational thinking, logic, facts, common sense...all unbiasedly and with complete openess and honesty.

If people apply that definition to skepticism, it seems impossible to truthfully come to any true belief in any god(s) since doing that would violate what being a skeptic is, because if they did, they couldn't come to the conclusion that any god(s) exist.

Any thoughts?

Cheers
DrZ

Why limit your self to religion? Just make it a skeptic can not hold any belief that is not supported by good evidence. So anyone with any stance on gun control or a host of other issues that don't have a clear evidential demonstrated right position is by definition not a skeptic.

Or you can just accept that skeptics can hold non skeptical positions.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 07:58 AM

You most certainly are, regardless of what you meant to say.

You are showing bias, as evidenced in the following:

The only reason to bring up the placebo when someone mentions evidence of religious claims is to try to fool people into thinking it is somehow relevant.

No, I brought up placebo and suggestion to point out that your assertion of "works / doesn't work" is not as binary a conclusion as you seem to claim.

When a drug is tested, it is tested to see if the results it yields are distinguishable from chance, given identical conditions. The point of a placebo is to establish a control with identical conditions as the treatment tested.

Right, and the results are never binary. I already pointed out to you the use of placebo in medical practice, which you've summarily ignored.

Thus far, all investigations into prayer have found it yields results which are indistinguishable from what we expect from chance. The same is said for the ability of dowsers to find gold.

I've never argued otherwise. I find your constant assertion of this in a manner that assumes I have argued opposite what you say to be a bit heavy on the strawman fallacy. I've stated and maintained my lack of religious belief, and yet you continually come at me rhetorically as if I am holding some religious belief. I find the tactic a little bit on the ridiculous side.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 07:59 AM

I find it fascinating that so many people think they have the authority to decide who is and isn't a Skeptic (tm, apparently).

Precisely.

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 08:01 AM

That's not what people in this thread are doing. They're not "asking" any such thing. They are declaring that people who choose to believe aren't skeptics.

And that's arrogant horse manure, any way you slice it.

I wasn't declaring that, and I don't think all others were either, some might have been... And depending on what definition you give to the word 'skeptic' those who do might not be wrong... But personally I am unsure about the "right" definition.

For me it simply does not go together though, and that is not me being arrogant or declaring anything, that's me not understanding this.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 08:07 AM

GreNME,

Why did you bring up the placebo effect?

Cleon

19th November 2007, 08:12 AM

I wasn't declaring that, and I don't think all others were either, some might have been

From the OP:

I postulate that someone can't be a skeptic and have any true belief in any god(s).

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 08:18 AM

From the OP:

From your post earlier:

That's not what people in this thread are doing. They're not "asking" any such thing. They are declaring that people who choose to believe aren't skeptics.

'People in this thread' is not the same as 'the OP'.

rocketdodger

19th November 2007, 08:21 AM

Of course someone can be a skeptic and believe in god. A skeptic can even believe in all sorts of woo, and remain a skeptic. It just means that the amount of evidence they desire before they agree with something is at a lower threshold than others.

In that light, it is pretty pointless to try and differentiate oneself from others using the label "skeptic" because even the most idiotic juju-dogma eater is also a skeptic.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 08:25 AM

GreNME

19th November 2007, 08:35 AM

GreNME,

Why did you bring up the placebo effect?

I already said in my last post: because what you claimed isn't correct in the "works / doesn't work" binary sense. You made an absolute statement and I was pointing out that it is not so absolute. The power of suggestion and subject-expectance are not as clearly defined as you seem to claim.

This has no bearing on whether prayer or faith or whatever works or not. Since I don't hold any such faith it won't work for me anyway. But that doesn't change that reality that, were I to come to a doctor insisting I need a medication to aleviate a condition, if the doctor prescribes a mild analgesic that is otherwise benign it does not mean that the application did not have some efficacy. I'm talking about a widely recognized and regularly discussed topic in the medical world, not some homepathic or 'alternative' medical practice that some snake-oil salesman is trying to sell. The AMA tends to conclude that medical professionals in the US must disclose when they are using placebo along with active medications, and that is for the safety of the patients as well as requiring ethical responsibility on the part of the doctor-- prescribing placebo for cases where a known remedy is the most likely treatment would be unethical and cause for removal from the practice of medicine.

Efficacy of drugs in double-blinds do not always require placebos, nor are placebos normally the only control in clinical trials. In reality most clinical trials involving placebos also include a control of non-treated or classically-treated individuals (depending on the condition), though published results as of the last decade or so usually only require listing the efficacy of drugs against one control, even though more than one may be used. As such, placebos are often listed against the efficacy of drugs because the idea is that a drug that displays results of significantly higher percentages than placebos lend more credence to the drug's efficacy than against non-treatment.

Placebo and suggestion aren't 'woo' at all, and dismissing them outright is the same intellectual snobbery as other statements being made.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 08:37 AM

'People in this thread' is not the same as 'the OP'.

Do you need a list of relevant quotes to support the statement he made that I agree with?

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 08:41 AM

I find it fascinating that so many people think they have the authority to decide who is and isn't a Skeptic (tm, apparently).

Speaking as unofficial representative for the skeptics who dare to harbor a belief in God, I will only say that we neither seek nor require your approval. You will still see us at TAM, you will still us working to promote the JREF and its goals--to say nothing of the Skeptics Society, CSI, NCSE, and the countless other organizations (foreign and domestic) that promote science, reason, and critical thinking.

If you don't agree with our beliefs, hey, that's fine. We're not asking you to. You won't find us claiming that we have evidence for our beliefs. You won't find us handing out tracts. And you definitely won't find us defending fundamentalists or Biblical literalism. We believe because we want to, that's all. Maybe that makes us "weak" in your eyes, but you know--I can live with that. I'd rather be "weak" than be arrogant enough to declare that people who don't agree with my opinion on the matter aren't really "Skeptics."

Martin Gardner is a skeptic. He believes in God.
Hal Bidlack is a skeptic. He believes in God.
I am a skeptic. I believe in God.

Deal with it.

And that's all I have to say about it.

Why not defend certain forms of creationism they are no more incompatible with skepticism than any theistic belief. All you have to do is decide that some supernatural agent(god, satan, ect) hid the real evidence and fabricated evidence for a old earth an evolutionary creation.

There is nothing with that belief that is remotely testable because the belief itself predicts its absence of evidence, so the only way to refute it is find positive evidence for a young earth.

Now very few creationists hold this belief stated as such, they think that the evidence is on their side, but a belief in YEC and biblical literalism all work perfectly is you add in conspiring supernatural agents.

So if you can be religious and a skeptic you can be a YEC creationist and Biblical literalist and a skeptic, provided you have the right sort of supernatural cover-up going on.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 08:41 AM

Placebo and suggestion aren't 'woo' at all, and dismissing them outright is the same intellectual snobbery as other statements being made.

I said no such thing about the placebo effect. I said that religious claims are groundless. You brought up the placebo effect. Why?

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 08:41 AM

Do you need a list of relevant quotes to support the statement he made that I agree with?

What?

Cleon said he thought that all people in this thread are of the same meaning (a meaning he doesn't like) I simply pointed out that people are not all of the same meaning, and also that not all people fully agree with the opinion of the OP.

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 08:44 AM

That's not what people in this thread are doing. They're not "asking" any such thing. They are declaring that people who choose to believe aren't skeptics.

And that's arrogant horse manure, any way you slice it.

And your claims about YEC and biblical literalists are very much the same thing. Those beliefs can be stated in such a way that they are just as compatable with skepticism as any other religious belief.

You can't just let a certain kinds of religious beliefs in.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 08:46 AM

I said no such thing about the placebo effect. I said that religious claims are groundless. You brought up the placebo effect. Why?

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Also, why do you keep ignoring "placebo and suggestion" in my posts?

Cleon

19th November 2007, 08:47 AM

What?

Cleon said he thought that all people in this thread are of the same meaning

No, he didn't.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 08:48 AM

What?

Cleon said he thought that all people in this thread are of the same meaning (a meaning he doesn't like) I simply pointed out that people are not all of the same meaning, and also that not all people fully agree with the opinion of the OP.

He didn't say "all people in this thread," he said "people in this thread." You are adding qualifiers to support your disagreement.

Cleon

19th November 2007, 08:48 AM

You can't just let a certain kinds of religious beliefs in.

And with that sentence, you validated every single thing I said.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 08:48 AM

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Also, why do you keep ignoring "placebo and suggestion" in my posts?

Because the plabeco effect and the power of suggestion do not constitute evidence for the validity of religious claims.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 08:51 AM

Because the plabeco effect and the power of suggestion do not constitute evidence for the validity of religious claims.

I never said they did, but what they do provide is a mechanism for the efficacy of certain practices. Religion tends to attribute them to one set of factors, science attributes them to another set of factors. However, you made an absolute comment on efficacy, and I disagreed. I likely would agree with you on attribution, but I cannot agree with your claim of no efficacy.

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 08:53 AM

No, he didn't.

I quote again.

That's not what people in this thread are doing. They're not "asking" any such thing. They are declaring that people who choose to believe aren't skeptics.

That is quite all encompassing as I read it. Not some of the people, not a few, not this one or that one, not the OP, but 'people in this thread', 'they' as in all of them.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 08:54 AM

Where in your quote of him is the word "all" located?

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 08:54 AM

I never said they did, but what they do provide is a mechanism for the efficacy of certain practices. Religion tends to attribute them to one set of factors, science attributes them to another set of factors.

The difference being that science uses evidence based inquiry. Religion uses make up gobbly-gook.

However, you made an absolute comment on efficacy, and I disagreed.

Where?

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 08:54 AM

And with that sentence, you validated every single thing I said.

Good way to dodge your double standards. Technically you do need to only let some in, but the some are not based on so much what they believe, you can be a very literal creationist and pass muster, the issue is on what evidence you claim for belief.

As long as you claim to have no evidence and no way to support your belief all beliefs are equally skeptical.

You don't get to draw lines around YEC's and say "They can't be skeptics"

Cleon

19th November 2007, 08:56 AM

I quote again.

That is quite all encompassing as I read it.

Wrong.

Cleon

19th November 2007, 08:57 AM

Technically you do need to only let some in,

The more you keep talking about "letting people in," the more you're proving my point.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 08:58 AM

Wrong.

Now who is being arrogant?

GreNME

19th November 2007, 08:58 AM

The difference being that science uses evidence based inquiry. Religion uses make up gobbly-gook.

Religion is not science, science is not religion.

However, you made an absolute comment on efficacy, and I disagreed.
Where?

Right here:Prayer has no efficacy.

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 09:01 AM

Where in your quote of him is the word "all" located?

That is how it read to me, but yes, of course I could have misunderstood him completely and be totally wrong about this. I did interpret what he said in the light of his whole post that, to me, seemed rather agitated about people that do not think that skepticism is compatible with religious belief, and that they are simply arrogant. But yes, of course it could be as you say, that I misunderstood what he said. It can also be that I didn't! I am honestly unsure about which now, but not fully convinced that you are right.

Cleon, if that really wasn't what you meant, I apologize, but that is honestly what it looked like to me.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 09:03 AM

Religion is not science, science is not religion.

I am aware of the distinction. Are you?

Right here:

I stand by that statement. The effects of prayer are indistinguishable from chance. Prayer is claimed to be able to cause miraculous events. Thus far, they are not in evidence.

Cleon

19th November 2007, 09:05 AM

Now who is being arrogant?

Probably the person misinterpreting my words for the sake of beating up a strawman.

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 09:07 AM

Now who is being arrogant?

Yes.

I said in my first post here that this is maybe a controversial subject, and it seems it is. :confused:

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 09:08 AM

Probably the person misinterpreting my words for the sake of beating up a strawman.

Wrong!

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 09:09 AM

The more you keep talking about "letting people in," the more you're proving my point.

So you don't see any value in classifications and terminology then? Then why care?

You just seem to be being very obnoxious and entirely ignoring the substance of peoples arguments.

Clearly people can be religious and skeptical, just look at the Discovery Institute? Would you agree or disagree with that statement and why?

Not that I expect any kind of real answer.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 09:09 AM

Probably the person misinterpreting my words for the sake of beating up a strawman.

I thought it was the person who came in here and presumed that the OP speaks for us all. That person has declared those who don't understand how you can hold untennable beliefs and be a skeptic to be arrogant.

That person would appear to be like a nimrod.

JoeEllison

19th November 2007, 09:10 AM

And that's all I have to say about it.

Care to reconsider this part?:cool:

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 09:10 AM

Probably the person misinterpreting my words for the sake of beating up a strawman.

What strawman? There are people with those beliefs.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 09:11 AM

Wrong!

Cleon doesn't seem interested in having a conversation. He appears to be interested in making declarations.

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 09:11 AM

Care to reconsider this part?:cool:

You probably totally misunderstood that and are creating a strawman to attack as you speak ;)

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 09:16 AM

Cleon doesn't seem interested in having a conversation. He appears to be interested in making declarations.

It seems so. I may have misunderstood him, but it was an honest mistake in that case (and I am still not convinced I actually did misunderstand, though I am unsure :confused:) and not an attempt to make a strawman. But I guess that when I say he's wrong about me, that doesn't carry the same weight as when he says I am wrong about him.

And yes, he has declared that we can not raise questions about this thing, that's clear.

CFLarsen

19th November 2007, 09:18 AM

The mere existence of such a deity is by definition supernatural.

But they don't claim the existence of such a deity.

But if they realise that, how can they be said to actually believe it?

Why not?

Remember the scene in "Contact"?

[Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God]
Palmer Joss: Did you love your father?
Ellie Arroway: What?
Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?
Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
Palmer Joss: Prove it.
Source (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes)

Get it? :)

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 09:20 AM

It seems so. I may have misunderstood him, but it was an honest mistake in that case (and I am still not convinced I actually did misunderstand, though I am unsure :confused:) and not an attempt to make a strawman. But I guess that when I say he's wrong about me, that doesn't carry the same weight as when he says I am wrong about him.

And yes, he has declared that we can not raise questions about this thing, that's clear.

Perhaps he blessed with a superior intellect, or just indignation. He has declared himself to be a skeptic, and Hal as well. Based on that assertion, he argues that it is therefore possible to be a skeptic and a theist.

To be fair, Hal is a deist in the most restrictive sense. There's precious little to examine about the claim of deism. Assuming Cleon's religious belief is of the same stripe, then the argument that one can be both a theist and skeptic has legs in his case.

Still, ain't no one perfect. I'm sure there are things I believe which are bunk. However, I agree with you that it's very odd to watch people with one religious belief critically and skeptically examine someone else's beliefs. It's a little kooky to me.

CFLarsen

19th November 2007, 09:21 AM

So you don't see any value in classifications and terminology then? Then why care?

You just seem to be being very obnoxious and entirely ignoring the substance of peoples arguments.

Clearly people can be religious and skeptical, just look at the Discovery Institute? Would you agree or disagree with that statement and why?

The Discovery people claim that the Christian god is responsible for species.

So, no, they are not skeptical. They are not even open to the possibility that they could be wrong.

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 09:24 AM

The Discovery people claim that the Christian god is responsible for species.

So, no, they are not skeptical. They are not even open to the possibility that they could be wrong.

It was a question dirrected to Cleon.

Fnord

19th November 2007, 09:26 AM

I am one of those "people who admit that their religious faith is not based on logic, reason, or evidence," and yet I also apply skepticism in my day-to-day life.

Sorry ... I just can't shake off my faith in the existance of the eternal Über-being commonly known as "God." It wasn't reasoned in, and it won't be reasoned out.

Maybe you should petition to have membership in JREF and websites like it open to only those people who will openly state that their beiliefs are humanistic, naturalistic, and totally secular; thus turning JREF and websites like it into Atheists-Only organizations.

Good Luck!

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 09:27 AM

Maybe you should petition to have membership in JREF and websites like it open to only those people who will openly state that their beiliefs are humanistic, naturalistic, and totally secular; thus turning JREF and websites like it into Atheists-Only organizations.

That's a horrible idea! We should put a stop to it right away. Who proposed such a terrible - oh, you did. As a strawman. Joy.

CFLarsen

19th November 2007, 09:30 AM

It was a question dirrected to Cleon.

Did you want an answer to your question, or did you want to pick a fight with a particular person?

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 09:31 AM

Perhaps he blessed with a superior intellect, or just indignation. He has declared himself to be a skeptic, and Hal as well. Based on that assertion, he argues that it is therefore possible to be a skeptic and a theist.

To be fair, Hal is a deist in the most restrictive sense. There's precious little to examine about the claim of deism. Assuming Cleon's religious belief is of the same stripe, then the argument that one can be both a theist and skeptic has legs in his case.

Still, ain't no one perfect. I'm sure there are things I believe which are bunk. However, I agree with you that it's very odd to watch people with one religious belief critically and skeptically examine someone else's beliefs. It's a little kooky to me.

Yes, I agree, I've believed things as well that turned out to be bunk, and I probably think I know things now as well that is really bunk, only I haven't heard about it yet. However, when I do realize it is bunk, I discard those things. That's what it is about to me, not being perfect from the get go.

And yes, the last you say is what is puzzling to me, and I have merely stated here that, just as you, I find that a bit kooky. :) I think that all of us that do wonder about this are not arrogant in the least, and in no way have we said we think that people like Cleon should not go to TAM, work for spreading reason, and all the other things he mentioned. Why on earth would we say that? :confused:

As I understood it, this (the OP and all) isn't about what theistic skeptics should or should not do, they are free to do what they want, and personally I think many of them do a lot of good here (as I said before) but that it is essentially about the very definition of the word 'skeptic' and what that entails. That discussing this generates a reaction such as Cleon's does come of as a wee bit defensive to me. And for no reason, he doesn't have to defend the way he is, because it is not under attack. And he has not replied to those who really raised some valid questions about his first post in this thread.

My personal definition of the word skeptic makes it incompatible with religious beliefs of any kind, though I have said that I am unsure as to what the "official" definition really is, and I have therefore not declared anything about how others should think and act.

rocketdodger

19th November 2007, 09:34 AM

Skepticism is the process of using evidence based inquiry to assess claims. A skeptic is a person who does this. How is "the most idiotic juju-dogma eater is also a skeptic?"

Because they use evidence based inquiry to assess claims.

It just so happens that the amount of evidence they consider satisfactory before making their assessment is on par with "someone told me so" or "I saw it in a book." That doesn't change the fact that they are still using evidence based assessment.

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 09:35 AM

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 09:38 AM

But as I have tried to point out, you can have a creationist belief that leaves the same amount to examine as deism or any other religious belief. Not all creationist beliefs require believing in any thing that can be tested to disprove it.

You mean "Last Thursdayism," for example? That's true enough. Still, can any such sophistry be examined critically?

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 09:39 AM

Did you want an answer to your question, or did you want to pick a fight with a particular person?

You have not been making arguments in this thread about how some of the poster in this thread are in no position to decide what a skeptic is or is not, and how excluding groups from the definition is bad.

Cleon seems to think letting some theistic beliefs in while keeping others that make an equal number of testable predictions out is perfectly acceptable. And it making arguments about people not having the authority to decide who is and who is not a skeptic.

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 09:43 AM

You mean "Last Thursdayism," for example? That's true enough. Still, can any such sophistry be examined critically?

No, and that is the point. There are many beliefs that you can not prove or disprove, many of them very very similar to woo woo beliefs that being worded slightly differently can be disproven. I do not see why some beliefs in this class exclude you from being a skeptic while others do not. And it seems everyone has beliefs in this class.

CFLarsen

19th November 2007, 09:46 AM

You have not been making arguments in this thread about how some of the poster in this thread are in no position to decide what a skeptic is or is not, and how excluding groups from the definition is bad.

It's not an argument. It is a fact that the Discovery people claim that the Christian god is responsible for species. It is a fact that they are not skeptics.

You asked a question. You got an answer. Go with that.

Cleon seems to think letting some theistic beliefs in while keeping others that make an equal number of testable predictions out is perfectly acceptable. And it making arguments about people not having the authority to decide who is and who is not a skeptic.

He doesn't claim evidence of those beliefs.

If he did, his ass would be grass and I'd be a lawn mower on high octane gas.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 09:47 AM

No, and that is the point. There are many beliefs that you can not prove or disprove, many of them very very similar to woo woo beliefs that being worded slightly differently can be disproven. I do not see why some beliefs in this class exclude you from being a skeptic while others do not. And it seems everyone has beliefs in this class.

As untestable claims are not subject to skeptical inquiry, I think they're irrelevant to the question of whether someone can have religious beliefs and be a skeptic. The logical conumdrum in the question, "can someone have religious beliefs and be a skeptic" follows from the nature of specific religious claims.

UnrepentantSinner

19th November 2007, 09:52 AM

Subbing now to read and comment later.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 09:53 AM

I am aware of the distinction. Are you?

I'm perfectly aware, which is why I don't feel a need to 'disprove' religion with science. I simply don't hold religious faith.

I stand by that statement. The effects of prayer are indistinguishable from chance. Prayer is claimed to be able to cause miraculous events. Thus far, they are not in evidence.

You are standing behind a false statement of absolute. The effects of prayer are indistinguishable from chance in a double-blind, but are equal to that of suggestion or subject-expectance when the participants are aware of the prayer. The logical conclusion is not an absolute lack of efficacy, it is a mis-attribution of source for the measurable efficacy.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 09:57 AM

I'm perfectly aware, which is why I don't feel a need to 'disprove' religion with science. I simply don't hold religious faith.

You are standing behind a false statement of absolute. The effects of prayer are indistinguishable from chance in a double-blind, but are equal to that of suggestion or subject-expectance when the participants are aware of the prayer. The logical conclusion is not an absolute lack of efficacy, it is a mis-attribution of source for the measurable efficacy.

No. The conclusion is that prayer is not effective at doing what prayer is claimed to do, including move mountains. No religion claims "pray, because it has a placebo effect."

Dancing David

19th November 2007, 09:59 AM

Right, and the results are never binary. I already pointed out to you the use of placebo in medical practice, which you've summarily ignored.

I certainly hope it is not a medical practice!

It is used in some doubleblind studies but many things are conflated as the placebo effect.

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 10:02 AM

It's not an argument. It is a fact that the Discovery people claim that the Christian god is responsible for species. It is a fact that they are not skeptics.

No, as it requires a definition of skeptic to be defined in such a way.

You asked a question. You got an answer. Go with that.

He doesn't claim evidence of those beliefs.

If he did, his ass would be grass and I'd be a lawn mower on high octane gas.

He hasn't made any attempt to define skeptic at all, only tell others that they can't define it so that theists are excluded.

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 10:05 AM

As untestable claims are not subject to skeptical inquiry, I think they're irrelevant to the question of whether someone can have religious beliefs and be a skeptic. The logical conumdrum in the question, "can someone have religious beliefs and be a skeptic" follows from the nature of specific religious claims.

But the general claim is that as long as those beliefs are untestable they do not exclude people from being skeptics. There we see the relevance of untestable claims.

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 10:11 AM

But the general claim is that as long as those beliefs are untestable they do not exclude people from being skeptics. There we see the relevance of untestable claims.

Why would religious untestable claims get a pass? If someone believes that we're all the dreams of alien joos who control reality with undetectable mind control beams, is that person a skeptic? You can't ever prove such a theory, because those evil alien joos control everything. It's as immune to crticial inquiry as deism.

Ranillon

19th November 2007, 10:30 AM

I think we are missing a basic truth here --

Skepticism is a method for evaluating a particular and specific claim. It cannot be used to directly confirm or dismiss a belief system as a whole. Sure, there are certain belief systems which tend to naturally arise from skepticism, but that is not the same thing as suggesting that good skepticism can only lead to a particular conclusion. Once you start making the claim that "good skeptic" = "a certain type of belief" you are turning skepticism from a method into a dogma.

To put it another way, such attitudes tend to encourage people to just jump to certain conclusions rather than reevaluating the evidence after each instance. A good skeptic should always be open to having his conclusions changed with new evidence, but when you start jumping to a particular assumption (as in "skeptic by definition equal atheist") you shortcircuit that process.

The simple fact is that two people can look at the same evidence and still come to different conclusions. Skepticism has to acknowledge that by limiting its criticism to specific claims and evidence. It's skepticism to say "As far as the evidence I've seen goes prayer does not directly aid in the healing process", but you start offering personal belief once you get to "Therefore, there is no god."

For instance, there are a number of skeptics (here and elsewhere) that honestly belief that the clear and obvious deduction based on "evidence" is that Libertarianism is the only logical political choice. I and others, however, would strongly dispute that. Does that mean we aren't good skeptics or is it that believers in Libertarianism aren't "real" skeptics? See how once you start confusing method with conclusion you turn the whole movement into an ideological crusade of one sort or another?

There is also another consideration -- we have access to different sources of evidence, some that aren't available to others.

Let's say that I am out walking in the woods one day when an alien mothership comes down out of the sky and some strange creature comes out to say "hi." Turns out he (it) is a friendly fellow just looking for directions to Tau Ceti. I point out which way to go, he thanks me, and then takes off. Amazed at my experience I rush to tell my next door (human) neighbor.

But, guess what, my neighbor doesn't believe me. After all, I didn't bring my camera and the alien didn't leave me his intergalatic business card. I have no independent evidence to back up my claim. Thus, from a skeptical viewpoint my experience is pretty much worthless -- it can't be used to establish the general conclusion that aliens exist and visit Earth. Yet, for me I have all the evidence required -- I was there and saw the alien first hand.

This sort of effect is quite common when it comes to religion/spirituality. People often have intensely meaningful, but also completely personal religious experiences. In fact, such things might ultimately represent that individual's reason for believing. But, obviously, such things can't be shared in the way that scientific facts can be -- that is, it is a subjective (as in individual) not objective (open to anyone) experience. We can all read a book on physics, but only Bob experiences his own unique religious revelation.

Now, that doesn't mean that such personal experience trumps all objective knowledge, only that it too is in the mix. We can't automatically dismiss such a thing just because we personally haven't had such an experience. By claiming that skepticism always leads to certain belief systems that is exactly what you are doing. It smacks of arrogance and others are going to pick up on it.

That's why I say skepticism is only a method for investigating claims, not a set of dogmas that any "good" skeptic should believe in.

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 10:31 AM

Why would religious untestable claims get a pass? If someone believes that we're all the dreams of alien joos who control reality with undetectable mind control beams, is that person a skeptic? You can't ever prove such a theory, because those evil alien joos control everything. It's as immune to crticial inquiry as deism.

If they accept that it is an untestable claim, why should it be treated any differently than deism?

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 10:32 AM

NeilC

19th November 2007, 10:37 AM

How are you defining Atheism exactly? Pure lack of a belief or an active belief there are no gods?

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 10:38 AM

By claiming that skepticism always leads to certain belief systems that is exactly what you are doing. It smacks of arrogance and others are going to pick up on it.

I wouldn't say that atheism is a belief system.

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 10:39 AM

How are you defining Atheism exactly? Pure lack of a belief or an active belief there are no gods?

Only speaking for myself, but a pure lack of belief, I'd say.

NeilC

19th November 2007, 10:40 AM

Only speaking for myself, but a pure lack of belief, I'd say.

What word would you use to describe someone with a belief there are no gods?

GreNME

19th November 2007, 10:41 AM

No. The conclusion is that prayer is not effective at doing what prayer is claimed to do, including move mountains. No religion claims "pray, because it has a placebo effect."

Right, but like I said religion doesn't play the part of science, and I already pointed out that I would agree that it is a case of mistaken attribution. Just because there is no proof of any divine power does not mean there is zero efficacy.

----

I certainly hope it is not a medical practice!

It's not used as a standard practice for any specific condition, if that's what you mean. However, it is used to aid in gaining receptiveness to other treatments or to ease anxiety in people who are not diagnosed with a clinical anxiety condition.

It is used in some doubleblind studies but many things are conflated as the placebo effect.

Using this as an argument is getting tiresome in its constant appeal to ignorance.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031231084101.htm
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392716
http://skepdic.com/placebo.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/placebo.html
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000109mag-talbot7.html
http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/2000/100_heal.html
http://student.bmj.com/issues/02/02/education/12.php

For a supposed 'skeptics' you sure are ignoring a lot of information out there written for skeptics by skeptics (http://skepdic.com/placebo.html) on the subject. There are ethical limitations to the use of placebo, first to protect the patient and second to prevent quackery or snake oil. However, you are seriously uninformed if you think double-blind testing is the only valid use for placebo.

No, as it requires a definition of skeptic to be defined in such a way.

He hasn't made any attempt to define skeptic at all, only tell others that they can't define it so that theists are excluded.

This one should be suitable: http://skepdic.com/skepticism.html

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 10:44 AM

Right, but like I said religion doesn't play the part of science, and I already pointed out that I would agree that it is a case of mistaken attribution. Just because there is no proof of any divine power does not mean there is zero efficacy.

No. Prayer has none of the effects is claimed to have.

Tell me, if religion "doesn't play the part of science," what does it "play the part of?" Moral guide? Morality isn't derived from religion.

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 10:45 AM

What word would you use to describe someone with a belief there are no gods?

I'm not sure, but to me atheism is not a belief of any kind.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 10:52 AM

No. Prayer has none of the effects is claimed to have.

Wrong again. It displays no evidence of the causes it claims to have.

Tell me, if religion "doesn't play the part of science," what does it "play the part of?" Moral guide? Morality isn't derived from religion.

So, are you now admitting you are arguing that religion plays the role of science?

Yoink

19th November 2007, 10:53 AM

This thread seems to mostly consist of people talking past each other because they're using the terms in play differently.

The chief problem lies in the use of the term "Skeptic"--I think it is smuggling in a restrictive (and problematic) definition: "somebody who is universally and consistently skeptical." Would somebody who is universally and consistently skeptical be able to maintain a belief in God? No. I don't think anybody here would be likely to debate that proposition for very long.

So what if we rephrase the question more narrowly: "when someone believes something without any supporting evidence, are they being skeptical?" Would anybody care to defend a "yes" answer to that question? If not, then all of the theistic skeptics in this thread who say "I am a skeptic because I accept that there is no evidence for my belief in God" should also accept that what they're really saying is "I'm usually skeptical, but when it comes to God I'm not."

And that, then, prompts a third question: "Is it possible to be universally and consistently skeptical"? Hume thought not (pyrrhonism is the term for universal skepticism, and he thought that such a person would be rightly expelled from society). So, if Hume was right, what does it mean to be a "true Skeptic"? Surely nobody is going to say that Hume wasn't a skeptic? So, if we accept that a skeptic is somebody who is skeptical about most things, or as a rule, then we can accept that there can be skeptics who believe in God. But we should also accept that their belief in God is not consistent with their habitual skepticism.

So:

1/ It is impossible to be an "absolute" Skeptic.

2/ If the label "skeptic" is valid of anybody, it will be valid of people who believe things that they cannot prove.

3/ Some people who may validly be labeled "Skeptic" will believe in God (without proof).

4/ Such people will be holding a belief which they choose not to subject to their normal skeptical practice (i.e., they are not being "skeptical" in this instance).

5/ To apply skepticism to religion logically entails atheist conclusions (please note that "agnosticism" was a term invented in the C19th as a polite synonym for "atheist"--it does not describe a logically distinct position from atheism).

Now: does anybody disagree with any of these 5 propositions?

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 10:56 AM

Wrong again. It displays no evidence of the causes it claims to have.

Causes of what? It does nothing, ergo there is no need to seek a cause. That bears repeating. Prayer does nothing.

So, are you now admitting you are arguing that religion plays the role of science?

I'm asking you a question. How about you answer it rather than playing amatuer psychoanalyst?

GreNME

19th November 2007, 10:58 AM

So:

1/ It is impossible to be an "absolute" Skeptic.

2/ If the label "skeptic" is valid of anybody, it will be valid of people who believe things that they cannot prove.

3/ Some people who may validly be labeled "Skeptic" will believe in God (without proof).

4/ Such people will be holding a belief which they choose not to subject to their normal skeptical practice (i.e., they are not being "skeptical" in this instance).

5/ To apply skepticism to religion logically entails atheist conclusions (please note that "agnosticism" was a term invented in the C19th as a polite synonym for "atheist"--it does not describe a logically distinct position from atheism).

Now: does anybody disagree with any of these 5 propositions?

Only with number five. When the term was developed is irrelevant to its connotation today. It has a distinction in that one can be either theist or atheist and still claim agnosticism.

Other than that, I'm in agreement with you.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 11:03 AM

Causes of what? It does nothing, ergo there is no need to seek a cause. That bears repeating. Prayer does nothing.

That is a false statement. It does the same thing as suggestion and placebo.

I'm asking you a question. How about you answer it rather than playing amatuer psychoanalyst?

How about you stop making wild accusations at me?

I already said, religion is not science and science is not religion. They are separate realms. So, unless you are now admitting that you do not agree with this (even though you said you did) then your question makes no sense. Which is it? Do you agree or not?

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 11:06 AM

That is a false statement. It does the same thing as suggestion and placebo.

I'm not going to bother with this any longer.

How about you stop making wild accusations at me?

I already said, religion is not science and science is not religion. They are separate realms. So, unless you are now admitting that you do not agree with this (even though you said you did) then your question makes no sense. Which is it? Do you agree or not?

Religions make claims. Those claim can and should be treated just like any other claims.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 11:18 AM

Religions make claims. Those claim can and should be treated just like any other claims.

Religion is not a science. By what science do you determine qualia?

ImaginalDisc

19th November 2007, 11:29 AM

Religion is not a science. By what science do you determine qualia?

You used the word "qualia."

:covereyes

I need an epinephrine shot now.

Please, define "qualia."

Ok, what does "Religion is not a science" mean? All testable claims should be evaulted equally. What makes religion special?

Yoink

19th November 2007, 11:38 AM

Only with number five. When the term was developed is irrelevant to its connotation today. It has a distinction in that one can be either theist or atheist and still claim agnosticism.

Other than that, I'm in agreement with you.

1/ If I say "I have no evidence to suggest that there is any such animal as the Loch Ness Monster, therefore I do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster" am I "agnostic" about the Loch Ness Monster or the equivalent of "atheist" about it (e.g. "amonsterist"?)?

2/ Is someone who says "I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is any such animal as the Loch Ness Monster, but I believe it must exist" being skeptical in that case?

ETA: (oops, I left of an important third question): 3/ If someone says "I have no evidence to suggest that there is any such animal as the Loch Ness Monster, therefore it is utterly impossible that any such animal could ever have existed or ever be proved to exist" are they being "skeptical"?

CFLarsen

19th November 2007, 11:55 AM

No, as it requires a definition of skeptic to be defined in such a way.

He hasn't made any attempt to define skeptic at all, only tell others that they can't define it so that theists are excluded.

Whoa...what's with this "define a skeptic"?

What definition do you use?

Darth Rotor

19th November 2007, 11:59 AM

This is the old question of whether someone labeling himself skeptic has to be a complete skeptic with regard to every subject. Your first reaction might be "of course," but then you're asking for an inquisition committee to investigate your life to make sure there's nothing lurking in the closets.

I see no advantage to inquiring into the level of skepticism of individual people, only in the subjects being discussed.

~~ Paul
A reasoned response to a kilt salesman. Well said, Paul.

@ The OP and those who support the position he proposed in his kilt sales pitch

I postulate that someone can't be a skeptic and have any true belief in any god(s).

See Cleon's suggestion that you deal with it (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3168726&postcount=41).

@ Ranillon: "skepticism is a method."

:clap:

Pith and truth, combined. :)

DR

The Atheist

19th November 2007, 12:00 PM

This has always bothered me. People claiming to be skeptics who hold out in their belief in god.

Used to bug the hell out of me, too. That's why the decision was made to resurrect the now-redundant "sceptic" and use it to signify a person who holds no unsupported beliefs. Accordingly, there are no christian sceptics, no homeopathy believers, no Qi, no Vishnu, no paranormal beliefs at all, including such fantastic propositions as "free will" (in the biblical sense).

However, that isn't yet widely accepted, so let's get to it!

I postulate that someone can't be a skeptic and have any true belief in any god(s).

As you're finding out, that isn't universally recognised either. I agree with you 100% though, which is why I made that decision.

To me, being a skeptic means formulating opinions and thoughts based on critical and rational thinking, logic, facts, common sense...all unbiasedly and with complete openess and honesty.

Bingo!

If you don't agree with our beliefs, hey, that's fine. We're not asking you to. You won't find us claiming that we have evidence for our beliefs.

God-boy moderator on a skeptics forum; QED.

To say you don't have evidence for your beliefs is an outrageous lie. The evidence is 2000 years of christianity and a proliferation of christian churches. Not to mention 2000 years of biblical study, theological statements and changing beliefs - or maybe, you still believe that witches should be hung and heretics tortured. Without that historical evidence, you'd be down on your knees worshipping a graven idol, the sun, or some such other equally-absurd belief as the one with a dead Jew running the universe in partnership with his old man and a see-through bloke.

That's why I say skepticism is only a method for investigating claims, not a set of dogmas that any "good" skeptic should believe in.

Correct.

However, it's quite plain that once those principles are even lightly applied to the invisible being, he disappears very quickly. This isn't Occam's Razor we're talking about here, this is Russell's teapot; an element of utter absurdity. Even with something as silly as astrology, there are stars and constellations people can see. Religion doesn't even have that.

All the god-children need to do to prove whether they are capable of using any form of scepticism where the sky-daddy is concerned is use scepticism on one simple example:

Which human was the first one to have a soul?

Why did his parents go to hell?

The end.

I can't speak for the OP, but I believe the assertion is that skeptical inquiry logically necessarily implies atheism if applied to religious claims, rather than proposing it as a type of dogma.

See - 100% correct. Sometimes, even you and I agree. That should sum it up, but doesn't. Come on, mate, bury the hatchet and come on over to "woo-free" scepticism!

The argument's a no-brainer.

I won't suggest that proves the brain level of some people.

This thread seems to mostly consist of people talking past each other because they're using the terms in play differently.

Disagree entirely and I did read it all.

It's about one side suggesting that there must be a definition of a "pure skeptic" before the line can be drawn, while the other is making sensible, irrefutable statements.

The point made by Imaginal Disc and others is very, very straightforward:

If you use sceptical enquiry to look at religion, it fails.

If you fail to apply scepticism there, there's little point applying it elsewhere.

And it isn't like some minor, irrelevant belief we're discussing, it's The Big One - three-quarters of the planet live their lives [ostensibly] to the tune of a sky-daddy.

If a person is willing to believe the sky-daddy stuff, he is willing to believe anything. You try to find me one other "woo" belief which is:

A) Dumber than any god/s and the belief therein
B) Anywhere near the importance of religion

If an invisible sky-daddy capable of creating the entire universe and changing the laws of physics to his will exists, then just about every other paranormal belief could certainly exist - it's all magic in one form or other - and psychics almost certainly would. After all, the people they talk to are dead, aren't they? Therefore, they are with god or in hell - why shouldn't the odd person be able to see them?

Utter baloney.

Carry on - Sceptics are meeting over in Room 3 for those sickened by thought of having to share a "label" with people who believe in miracles, angels, god/s and any other fairytale they choose.

Yoink

19th November 2007, 12:09 PM

Disagree entirely and I did read it all.
It doesn't appear that you even read the entirety of my post, let alone the whole thread.

It's about one side suggesting that there must be a definition of a "pure skeptic" before the line can be drawn, while the other is making sensible, irrefutable statements.
That's a nice, non-tendentious way of putting it.

If you use sceptical enquiry to look at religion, it fails.
Yes--that was one of the things I said in my post (the part I think you skipped, because you made a [bad] guess as to what my position was rather than bothering to read and find out what my position actually was).

If you fail to apply scepticism there, there's little point applying it elsewhere.
Well, I tend to agree with that as a matter of pragmatic social/political priorities. However, it doesn't address the logical question of whether or not it is fair to call someone a "skeptic" who happens not to "apply skepticism there." If you're saying that to be a skeptic you have to apply skepticism everywhere then you're saying that, for example, David Hume was not a skeptic. That may be a defensible position, but it seems to limit the number of skeptics to a vanishingly small number. Quite possibly it limits them to 0.

And it isn't like some minor, irrelevant belief we're discussing, it's The Big One - three-quarters of the planet live their lives [ostensibly] to the tune of a sky-daddy.
Sure--again, that's a pragmatic position, not a logical one.

If a person is willing to believe the sky-daddy stuff, he is willing to believe anything. You try to find me one other "woo" belief which is:

A) Dumber than any god/s and the belief therein
B) Anywhere near the importance of religion

If an invisible sky-daddy capable of creating the entire universe and changing the laws of physics to his will exists, then just about every other paranormal belief could certainly exist - it's all magic in one form or other - and psychics almost certainly would. After all, the people they talk to are dead, aren't they? Therefore, they are with god or in hell - why shouldn't the odd person be able to see them?
Well, you're preaching to the choir. Except that we do in fact know people who suspend their skeptical practice when it comes to belief about a Deist kind of God (not really a "sky-daddy" of the kind you're railing against) and yet seem capable of being pretty rigorously skeptical in all other areas. People are weird and inconsistent--what are you going to do?

Carry on - Sceptics are meeting over in Room 3 for those sickened by thought of having to share a "label" with people who believe in miracles, angels, god/s and any other fairytale they choose.
Right, you don't like having these people on your "team." Fine--but again, that's got nothing to do with logical argument. You know--the stuff that skeptics are supposed to like to indulge in.

saizai

19th November 2007, 12:12 PM

This is exactly the same as God. Belief in a non-interventionist God is the same as believing that Dowsing works, it just has a zero "effect power" (that jargon can't be correct).

I think Maatorc (not sure about the spelling) who hangs out on the forums actually believes this, so it's not just a stupid hypothetical.

If he believes that dowsing "works", but that what he means by "works" is "it doesn't have any discernable ability to do what it claims to do, i.e. find stuff beyond the mundane observational power of the users"... then okay whatever I guess. At that point it's just the equivalent of a worryball (e.g. those little squeezable globe things); if it's useful for him for purely psychological reasons, rather than claiming that the dowsing rod "does something" as such, then this is perfectly compatible with skepticism.

Untestable claims are mere sophism, but religions are seldom based solely on untestable claims. Prayer has no efficacy. Miracles have no basis.

So, would you say that anything that is "mere sophism" like an untestable / unfalsifiable claim, is something that a "true skeptic" must not believe in, else lose their credentials? :confused:

If so, then surely you agree that all "true skeptics" such as yourself must necessarily be solipsists as well...

That is one point that most skeptics, the way I use the term, would agree that they can't prove or disprove, but they (choose to?) believe in a nonsolipsistic world anyway, because it's nicer that way.

Similarly someone may believe in a (untestable, unfalsifiable) god anyway.

I find a better description for this is a blind spot.

Not really, because the people in question are quite happy to admit that this worldview is factually unsupported, and to critique it quite liberally on logical grounds. Nevertheless it's useful to them.

Though perhaps you're thinking of people more woo than my friends, who both hold these beliefs AND lack the ability (skill? ova?) to critique it logically - I grant that there are many more of these, so the confusion would be understandable.

The Atheist

19th November 2007, 12:22 PM

Let's play, Spot The Difference!

Homeopathy works by water molecules magically remembering, and replicating the effect of chemicals.

God works in mysterious ways, which may or may not include answering prayers at whim.

Astrology works because the stars affect each of us in our daily lives.

God created the entire universe.

Psychics talk to the dead, because the dead aren't dead, but live on.

Christians don't really die, they live on in heaven.

Telekinesis works - people can move objects with their minds.

Invisible things can make physical things happen.

Reiki is a means of curing medical problems with supernatural powers.

Mary and Jesus were born by their mothers being impregnated by something with supernatural powers.

Fnord

19th November 2007, 12:34 PM

Skepticism is a method for evaluating a particular and specific claim.

In the ideal case, yes. Also -- in an ideal case -- a skeptic is a person who uses the methodology of skepticism.

Unfortunately, for some "Skepticism" is now being used in its most fundamental and orthodox sense -- as a system wherein nothing is believed until there exist verifiable facts to support that belief, and that if a person believes even one unverifiable "fact," then that person is not a skeptic.

Much the same idea is shared by neo-conservative Bushites who state that if you disagree with even one of our president's decisions or policies, then you are not an American.

Or religious fundamentalists who declare that if you have even the slightest doubt about even one statement of religious dogma, then you are apostate and doomed to spend eternity in whatever state of damnation their religion embraces.

Therefore:

1) Skepticism is a method for evaluating a particular and specific claim.

2) A skeptic is a person who uses the methodology of skepticism.

No other qualifiers are needed.

The Atheist

19th November 2007, 12:34 PM

Yes--that was one of the things I said in my post (the part I think you skipped, because you made a [bad] guess as to what my position was rather than bothering to read and find out what my position actually was).

My mistake, you've just mistaken my continuing on as directed at you, which it wasn't - it was directed at christians in particular. I'll put a page break or something in next time.

Well, I tend to agree with that as a matter of pragmatic social/political priorities. However, it doesn't address the logical question of whether or not it is fair to call someone a "skeptic" who happens not to "apply skepticism there." If you're saying that to be a skeptic you have to apply skepticism everywhere then you're saying that, for example, David Hume was not a skeptic. That may be a defensible position, but it seems to limit the number of skeptics to a vanishingly small number. Quite possibly it limits them to 0.

Nope, that goes back the "pure skepticism" thing, which I agree is silly. Just that if you don't apply it to the overwhelmingly most-believed and most important unsupported belief, the term "skeptic" becomes invalid, in my view.

Except that we do in fact know people who suspend their skeptical practice when it comes to belief about a Deist kind of God (not really a "sky-daddy" of the kind you're railing against) and yet seem capable of being pretty rigorously skeptical in all other areas. People are weird and inconsistent--what are you going to do?

Do we really know that, or do they say it?

Deist/theist, it really doesn't matter - the proposition is much the same, and "sky daddy" definitely fits the deist view, possibly more than a theist one. What else is the deist god but an unknowable, unnamed, impotent sky-daddy.

As to what I'm going to do, I've already done it!

Right, you don't like having these people on your "team." Fine--but again, that's got nothing to do with logical argument. You know--the stuff that skeptics are supposed to like to indulge in.

Disagree entirely. It's completely black and white:

Do you have any unsupported beliefs? yes/no You don't need to know everything, just base the answer on a person's current knowledge and the answer is entirely logical.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 12:51 PM

You used the word "qualia."

:covereyes

I need an epinephrine shot now.

Please, define "qualia."

That's the whole point: there is no reasonable scientific definition for "what I feel."

Ok, what does "Religion is not a science" mean? All testable claims should be evaulted equally. What makes religion special?

Religion is not made up of testable claims. That's what I've been saying from the beginning.

Big Les

19th November 2007, 12:59 PM

But they don't claim the existence of such a deity.

I don't understand the dichotomy between holding such beliefs and not making any claims about them. Sure, they don't make these claims openly, but doesn't the very act of belief imply that they think such a deity must exist?

Remember the scene in "Contact"? Get it? :)

No, sorry. I wish I did. I really would like to understand. (Platonic "love" is an abstract concept comprised of not only internal emotions, but observable phenomena such as repeated acts of altruism, protectiveness, demonstrated affection etc. It's not some magical power akin to a "god" of any kind, and it involves social relationship between two very real, very alive people.

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 01:03 PM

Whoa...what's with this "define a skeptic"?

Look at the title "Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?" this whole thread is about the definition of who is and who is not a skeptic.

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 01:13 PM

And you definitely won't find us defending fundamentalists or Biblical literalism.

And this is the exact sentence where you demonstrate that you hold just as rigid lines about what a skeptic can not believe in as those who say that no theist can be a skeptic. You just move the line.

Yoink

19th November 2007, 01:14 PM

Nope, that goes back the "pure skepticism" thing, which I agree is silly. Just that if you don't apply it to the overwhelmingly most-believed and most important unsupported belief, the term "skeptic" becomes invalid, in my view.

I think the most-believed and most important unsupported belief is the belief that the world exists. I believe the world exists. I believe that if I don't get out of the way of a bus it will probably be "bus 1, me 0" etc. I can't prove any of this. I can't even prove that because the fundamental laws of physics obtained yesterday that they will obtain tomorrow--but I believe they will (and will act accordingly). etc. etc. etc.

Now, am I "not a skeptic" because of these (untested and untestable) beliefs?

The Atheist

19th November 2007, 01:15 PM

That's the whole point: there is no reasonable scientific definition for "what I feel."

Well, there absolutely is -it's generated inside the human brain. If that's unreasonable, I'd love to see your reasonable reason.

Religion is not made up of testable claims. That's what I've been saying from the beginning.

Baloney.

Pick a religion and I'll give you a list of their claims which are testable.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 01:16 PM

And this is the exact sentence where you demonstrate that you hold just as rigid lines about what a skeptic can not believe in as those who say that no theist can be a skeptic. You just move the line.

No he didn't. He displayed cognizance of the law of averages. Most people who have a religious faith avoid defending fundementalist or literalists, and in many cases speak out against them.

The Atheist

19th November 2007, 01:17 PM

I think the most-believed and most important unsupported belief is the belief that the world exists.

Good for you.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 01:20 PM

Well, there absolutely is -it's generated inside the human brain. If that's unreasonable, I'd love to see your reasonable reason.

So, how do you prove what is generated in another person's brain "wrong"?

Baloney.

Pick a religion and I'll give you a list of their claims which are testable.

Thanks, but you can leave your proselytizing at the door. How about you just tell me how you disprove faith.

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 01:21 PM

No he didn't. He displayed cognizance of the law of averages. Most people who have a religious faith avoid defending fundementalist or literalists, and in many cases speak out against them.

So if you find a literalist skeptic the we disprove the world existing? He did not say you are unlikely, it was a much more definite statement that they do not exist. Well with the diversity of human belief the only reason to think that they would not exist is if they can't by definition.

I am thinking of scientists who are Young Earth creationists and still either did or do good honest science and don't claim that the evidence in on the side of YEC. That is a position perfectly in line with skepticism.

Cleon

19th November 2007, 01:22 PM

God-boy moderator on a skeptics forum; QED.

Mister God-boy to you, punk. (And...horror of horrors, I'm not the only moderator who isn't an atheist.)

To say you don't have evidence for your beliefs is an outrageous lie. The evidence is 2000 years of christianity and a proliferation of christian churches. Not to mention 2000 years of biblical study, theological statements and changing beliefs - or maybe, you still believe that witches should be hung and heretics tortured. Without that historical evidence, you'd be down on your knees worshipping a graven idol, the sun, or some such other equally-absurd belief as the one with a dead Jew running the universe in partnership with his old man and a see-through bloke.

I might take exception to this...If I was a Christian in any way, shape, or form.

Fortunately, I'm not, so the above is merely gibberish.

CFLarsen

19th November 2007, 01:22 PM

I don't understand the dichotomy between holding such beliefs and not making any claims about them. Sure, they don't make these claims openly, but doesn't the very act of belief imply that they think such a deity must exist?

No. Why?

No, sorry. I wish I did. I really would like to understand. (Platonic "love" is an abstract concept comprised of not only internal emotions, but observable phenomena such as repeated acts of altruism, protectiveness, demonstrated affection etc. It's not some magical power akin to a "god" of any kind, and it involves social relationship between two very real, very alive people.

All those observable phenomena can be faked. As the divorce rate is evidence of. ;)

What is your answer to the question put in "Contact"?

Look at the title "Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?" this whole thread is about the definition of who is and who is not a skeptic.

I asked you: What definition do you use?

ponderingturtle

19th November 2007, 01:28 PM

I asked you: What definition do you use?

I go with the process definition, and when applied to people, people who use the process.

As I class beliefs in three categories and skeptics can have the first two(and in general you can not find anyone with out beliefs in the first two)

beliefs that are supported by evidence
beliefs that are not supported or contradicted by evidence
beliefs that are contradicted by evidence

As a great many belief when described in general and not specific detailed terms that fit into the third category can fit into the second if they remove contradictable claims, there is little you can say a skeptic doesn't believe in.

GreNME

19th November 2007, 01:31 PM

Oy.

I'm not religious at all, hold no religious beliefs or faith in anything, and this thread on top of most threads on the first page make it pretty clear that the "Religion and Philosophy" subforum should probably be called the "Atheist or You're Wrong (and probably stupid)" subforum.

The Atheist

19th November 2007, 01:59 PM

So, how do you prove what is generated in another person's brain "wrong"?

Why on earth would I need to?

Thanks, but you can leave your proselytizing at the door. How about you just tell me how you disprove faith.

That's just changing the subject - you claimed that religion does not make testable claims, I'm saying that they all do. Pretty unequivocal, I'd have thought. You could always give me a religion so I could prove my point.

Mister God-boy to you, punk.

:dl:

(Reported on "punk"; cheers.)

(And...horror of horrors, I'm not the only moderator who isn't an atheist.)

No secret in that.

I might take exception to this...If I was a Christian in any way, shape, or form.

Fortunately, I'm not, so the above is merely gibberish.

As I pointed out, christian, theist, deist, muslim, buddhist - makes no difference to me. One sky-daddy or comfort blanket for the weak-willed is much akin to another. Which crutch you personally use is immaterial to me.

CFLarsen

19th November 2007, 02:11 PM

I go with the process definition, and when applied to people, people who use the process.

As I class beliefs in three categories and skeptics can have the first two(and in general you can not find anyone with out beliefs in the first two)

beliefs that are supported by evidence
beliefs that are not supported or contradicted by evidence
beliefs that are contradicted by evidence

As a great many belief when described in general and not specific detailed terms that fit into the third category can fit into the second if they remove contradictable claims, there is little you can say a skeptic doesn't believe in.

How does this make the Discovery people skeptics?

How does Cleon's arguments fit into this?

-Fran-

19th November 2007, 03:49 PM

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/11/16/snap/

The latest Jesus & Mo kind of fits this thread :)

Big Les

19th November 2007, 04:34 PM

No. Why?

How can you possibly believe in something you don't personally think exists? :confused:

All those observable phenomena can be faked. As the divorce rate is evidence of. ;)

I'm not sure what your point is. If it's that love is a nebulous concept, different for everyone, that's a construct of the mind, and that "god" can be the same, then I agree with you I suppose. Which leads me on to...

What is your answer to the question put in "Contact"?

That "love" as anything more than a way to describe chemical things happening in my brain, doesn't exist. Just like "god" doesn't. I describe my affection for my loved ones, my familiarity with them, my bond with them through shared experiences, my shared world-view etc. It's something that humans have evolved as a way of forming functioning social groups - nothing more. And "god" as a concept is much the same, except that it's even more nebulous, being not an expression of a relationship between two people, but between one person and their imaginary friend/creator/whatever.

So, if my answer is that "love" is a (to some extent shared) mental construct, would you agree that "god" is also a product of the mind?

ETA - some more discussion on your "love" analogy here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98810&page=2).

Apology

19th November 2007, 05:12 PM

Lonewulf

19th November 2007, 09:52 PM

I'm willing to accept theists as skeptics as long as they're skeptical about testable claims. We need their help in the fight against the stuff that we can prove is absolute bunk. The fact that they don't want to apply skepticism to their religious beliefs doesn't make their contributions any less valuable. I'd rather not turn skepticism into a belief system. That way it can be available to everyone equally, regardless of their religious affiliation. Requiring everyone to leave their religion at the door will keep skepticism from some of the people who need it the most.

I don't think anyone is saying that anyone shouldn't accept theists. I certainly wouldn't. Requiring a "theist check" at the door before barring entry at TAM would be kinda silly. ;)

However, I would still state that religious believers are limiting their skepticism to that which doesn't deal with their own faith.

But then, I still hold that skepticism is a tool less than a "state of being". And like a tool, it may be used as sparingly or as muchly as the person who wields it desires.

The Atheist

19th November 2007, 10:59 PM

But then, I still hold that skepticism is a tool less than a "state of being". And like a tool, it may be used as sparingly or as muchly as the person who wields it desires.

Meaning that a person who is sceptical about the yeti, but not regarding sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, UFO abductions and crop circles is still able to claim scepticism.

Roboramma

19th November 2007, 11:45 PM

And that, then, prompts a third question: "Is it possible to be universally and consistently skeptical"? Hume thought not (pyrrhonism is the term for universal skepticism, and he thought that such a person would be rightly expelled from society). Why did Hume think so?

I don't really see why thing would be the case.

qayak

20th November 2007, 12:18 AM

But then, I still hold that skepticism is a tool less than a "state of being". And like a tool, it may be used as sparingly or as muchly as the person who wields it desires.

Maybe a new term for those who apply skepticism to all things should be tried. We could call them . . . . Brights!

CFLarsen

20th November 2007, 12:48 AM

How can you possibly believe in something you don't personally think exists? :confused:

Because it comforts you. Those that do that allow themselves to deceive themselves - ever so slightly, knowingly, but without any major damage - simply because they feel good about it.

I'm not sure what your point is. If it's that love is a nebulous concept, different for everyone, that's a construct of the mind, and that "god" can be the same, then I agree with you I suppose. Which leads me on to...

That "love" as anything more than a way to describe chemical things happening in my brain, doesn't exist. Just like "god" doesn't. I describe my affection for my loved ones, my familiarity with them, my bond with them through shared experiences, my shared world-view etc. It's something that humans have evolved as a way of forming functioning social groups - nothing more. And "god" as a concept is much the same, except that it's even more nebulous, being not an expression of a relationship between two people, but between one person and their imaginary friend/creator/whatever.

So, if my answer is that "love" is a (to some extent shared) mental construct, would you agree that "god" is also a product of the mind?

That's precisely what I think.

Can you also allow the social construct - a non-evidential god that comforts you - too?

If so, then you get it. :)

JanisChambers

20th November 2007, 01:17 AM

I am actually trying to figure something along those lines, but honestly I have no idea. There just isn't anything to go on. As I say to those who question my atheism, It isn't that I don't believe in god, I simply have no reason to do so.

Big Les

20th November 2007, 01:37 AM

Because it comforts you. Those that do that allow themselves to deceive themselves - ever so slightly, knowingly, but without any major damage - simply because they feel good about it.

That's precisely what I think.

I see that as personally inconsistent (up to them) and condescending (on the part of atheist sceptics). Sort of like saying, there there, you can believe in your emotional crutch as long as it's rendered externally impotent by not actually having any impact on the real world.

Can you also allow the social construct - a non-evidential god that comforts you - too?

If so, then you get it. :)

Me? No, I couldn't square it with the way I view the world with what I see as scepticism as my primary method for doing so. It seems hugely inconsistent, irrational, and as I know there's no evidence behind the idea, I simply can't maintain the level of self-deceit necessary to take that on board.

But I can allow it for others, of course. Why wouldn't I? I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to. In fact, as they don't make any testable claims, unlike the woos, they've got their own irrational beliefs pretty much unassailable. That's fine for them - I'm just saying I don't understand it, like the OP, not advocating that theist sceptics should be shunned or drummed out of the "club" or whatever.

I'm just trying to understand people that, notional theism aside, otherwise seem to share my own worldview.

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 02:44 AM

Me? No, I couldn't square it with the way I view the world with what I see as scepticism as my primary method for doing so. It seems hugely inconsistent, irrational, and as I know there's no evidence behind the idea, I simply can't maintain the level of self-deceit necessary to take that on board.

But I can allow it for others, of course. Why wouldn't I? I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to. In fact, as they don't make any testable claims, unlike the woos, they've got their own irrational beliefs pretty much unassailable. That's fine for them - I'm just saying I don't understand it, like the OP, not advocating that theist sceptics should be shunned or drummed out of the "club" or whatever.

I'm just trying to understand people that, notional theism aside, otherwise seem to share my own worldview.

This is exactly how I see it, too. I can't understand why thinking this should be so threatening to some "theist skeptics" (I made that term up now, is it used/usable?) and how they can interpret this as we wanting them to shut up, or leave, etc etc :confused: Why do they think we would see them as a threat? I certainly don't.

ETA:
Oh, I see you used the term "theist skeptic" too now. :o

Georg

20th November 2007, 03:38 AM

I do not understand the question since you can easily be agnostic and atheist. There is no contradiction. Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism with knowledge. I lack a belief in god(s), therefore I´m an atheist. Do I know for sure, like 100%, that there are no gods? No, I don´t and I don´t claim that, therefore I am an agnostic. That makes me an agnostic atheist, and after reading hundreds of posts regarding that topic on this forum, I´d say a lot of skeptics here would fall in that category.

Yes, but "most other people are" is neither logically sound nor necessarily intellectually honest. I also hold no religious belief and remain generally agnostic, but I think the distinction I am talking about regarding agnosticism (as opposed to atheism) and religion might be tangental to the original post. I think it's germane to the question, though, and a worthwhile distinction.

I know it´s late to react on this since the discussion has moved on quite a bit, but I cannot let this go uncommented.
Let´s see:

Yes, but "most other people are" is neither logically sound nor necessarily intellectually honest.

Problem is: I didn´t claim "most other people are".
So, ascribing expressions to me that I didn´t use, just to to show my possible intellectual dishonesty and logically unsoundness seems a bit, mmhhmmmmm, dishonest and logically unsound? If it was meant different, or directed at somebody else, I apologize in advance and blame it on my insufficient knowledge of the English language.:D

but I think the distinction I am talking about regarding agnosticism (as opposed to atheism) and religion might be tangental to the original post. I think it's germane to the question, though, and a worthwhile distinction.

Agnosticism and atheism are not identical, but they are not opposed to each other either, agnostics and atheists are two groups that partly overlap. That exactly was my point.
If you see that different, I´d be happy to see your explanation how they are opposed. Thanks.

To the OP:

If people believe in religions that make testable claims (like YEC etc.), and as far as I´m aware, religious claims never have passed those tests, they are no skeptics in my opinion.
If they entertain the idea of some not exactly defined deity, that may have started the evolutionthingy and everything else but doesn´t interfere with the universe anymore, I´m torn. I cannot follow their thoughts or line of reasoning as there is no supporting evidence for that kind of god either and it makes as much sense for me as to believe in the IPU or the FSM. But they are still not in the same camp as people who believe despite contradicting evidence. Would "skeptic light™" be an accurate term?

Dancing David

20th November 2007, 04:23 AM

It's not used as a standard practice for any specific condition, if that's what you mean. However, it is used to aid in gaining receptiveness to other treatments or to ease anxiety in people who are not diagnosed with a clinical anxiety condition.

Uh huh, right.

Documentation?

Using this as an argument is getting tiresome in its constant appeal to ignorance.

Pretending that the 'placebo effect' is not a conflation of different things is even more foolish.

Ever heard of 'regression to the mean'?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031231084101.htm
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392716
http://skepdic.com/placebo.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/placebo.html
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000109mag-talbot7.html
http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/2000/100_heal.html
http://student.bmj.com/issues/02/02/education/12.php

It that a lame appeal to authority or what,

no pubmed or even journal articles? Should be funny.

For a supposed 'skeptics' you sure are ignoring a lot of information out there written for skeptics by skeptics (http://skepdic.com/placebo.html) on the subject.

lamest appearl to authority ever.

There are ethical limitations to the use of placebo, first to protect the patient and second to prevent quackery or snake oil. However, you are seriously uninformed if you think double-blind testing is the only valid use for placebo.

I believe that you over read my statement.

Got any evidence to go with the hand and arm waving?

Dancing David

20th November 2007, 04:58 AM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1231084101.htm

Says exactly what i said, that the placebo effect is a conflation of different things.

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles...e_id=218392716

This is the actual article:
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/25/34/7754?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Zubieta&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT#SEC3

and it is very interesting.

However it reports that an effect exists and is measurable.

However there are no conclusions as to the cognitive framework of how the mechanism works. So further study could be done to demonstrate why the effect occurs. One would certainly not be able to conclude that adminstration of a placebo is an effective pain management strategy.

The study also notes that the opiod receptors fire up in response to the application of the algesic.

Also some of the effects are small in overall intensity.

It would appear that the study group was also n=14 and that no control group was used.

http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

according to Danish researchers Asbjørn Hróbjartsson and Peter C. Götzsche. Their meta-study of 114 studies involving placebos found "little evidence in general that placebos had powerful clinical effects...[and]...compared with no treatment, placebo had no significant effect on binary outcomes, regardless of whether these outcomes were subjective or objective. For the trials with continuous outcomes, placebo had a beneficial effect, but the effect decreased with increasing sample size, indicating a possible bias related to the effects of small trials ("Is the Placebo Powerless? An Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing Placebo with No Treatment," The New England Journal of Medicine, May 24, 2001 (Vol. 344, No. 21)."

http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/placebo.html

It appears that belief, operant conditioning, and suggestibility all play important roles.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magaz...g-talbot7.html

Wow a touchy feely magazine article, i shall have to dig up the original resrach and see what it actually says and what controls were used.

http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/2000/100_heal.html

Another general article, what does the real research say?

http://student.bmj.com/issues/02/02/education/12.php

And another general article. i shall have to read later.

basically so far they support my statement that the placebo effect is the conflation of many different effects.

Lonewulf

20th November 2007, 05:30 AM

Meaning that a person who is sceptical about the yeti, but not regarding sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, UFO abductions and crop circles is still able to claim scepticism.

They can be skeptical about the Yeti, but not the Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, UFO abductions, and crop circles. Yeap.

Can they claim to be a "good" skeptic, or a consistent one? I don't think so, no.

No one is a 100% purist when it comes to skepticism. For instance, there are times where I believe that I can trust a friend; even when he's broken my trust, I'm willing to believe that he's honest about how he's not willing to break my trust again. That takes faith as much as it takes evidence.

However, if you're only a 1% purist, and believe everything that comes your way except for one thing, then the term "skeptic" doesn't quite seem to apply.

A 99% purist that's skeptical about everything (including claims of modern-day miracles), but yet believes in God (for now, let's take the Deist God, he's pretty easy-going), I'd still say that they still show a decent amount of skepticism.

ponderingturtle

20th November 2007, 05:34 AM

How does this make the Discovery people skeptics?

I don't consider them, I was wondering if he did when he was jumping on people for not having the power to arbitrate who is and who is not skeptics. But it is likely that they consider themselves to be skeptics.

How does Cleon's arguments fit into this?

Who has the ability to decide who is and who is not a skeptic of course.

ponderingturtle

20th November 2007, 05:37 AM

ponderingturtle

20th November 2007, 05:42 AM

No one is a 100% purist when it comes to skepticism. For instance, there are times where I believe that I can trust a friend; even when he's broken my trust, I'm willing to believe that he's honest about how he's not willing to break my trust again. That takes faith as much as it takes evidence.

No one can be 100% skeptic. Which idea is more skeptical the idea that all men are created equal or the idea that do to chance(good genes and such) some people are better than others?

What is the evidence for each side? A pure skeptic would go where the evidence leads.

Apology

20th November 2007, 05:45 AM

Meaning that a person who is sceptical about the yeti, but not regarding sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, UFO abductions and crop circles is still able to claim scepticism.

Rationality shouldn't be available to only an elite few. Let them call themselves skeptics. We know whether they really are or not.

Rasmus

20th November 2007, 05:46 AM

They can be skeptical about the Yeti, but not the Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, UFO abductions, and crop circles. Yeap.

Can they claim to be a "good" skeptic, or a consistent one? I don't think so, no.

This is as good a moment as any to bring up my previous question: How much meat can I eat whilst still be considered a vegetarian?

I don't think the answer must be "absolutely none". A vegetarian who accidentally takes a bite from a hot dog instead of a tofu substitute is still a vegetarian in my eyes. The same holds true for anyone who eats meat in those rare emergencies where other food is not available and waiting it out just isn't an option. I am sure there are more instances of meat-eating that I would think are acceptable for a vegetarian.

There are some self-proclaimed vegetarians who still eat fish. I don't consider these people to be vegetarians, but we simply use a different definition of what a vegetarian is. (I think "eats no animals" describes a vegetarian, other people may restrict that to land dwelling animals, or possibly even mammals.)

But if someone regularly eats beef (and does so out of choice and knowingly) I think it simply doesn't make sense to apply the label "vegetarian" to them any more. Eating beef is too big an exception.

Lonewulf

20th November 2007, 05:47 AM

No one can be 100% skeptic. Which idea is more skeptical the idea that all men are created equal or the idea that do to chance(good genes and such) some people are better than others?
Define "better"?

"Equal" in what way? "All men are created equal" has different connotations depending on who's using it. Some people, for instance, believe that it means that all men are equal in the eyes of the law.

What is the evidence for each side? A pure skeptic would go where the evidence leads.
A good skeptic would want a good definition and some clarification before continuing...

Rasmus

20th November 2007, 05:49 AM

Rationality shouldn't be available to only an elite few. Let them call themselves skeptics. We know whether they really are or not.

What does that have to do with the availability of rationality? I wasn't aware it is rationed somehow.

They can be as rational as they want - but nobody should claim rationality for instances where they aren't being rational.

CFLarsen

20th November 2007, 06:23 AM

I don't consider them

Yes, you do:

Clearly people can be religious and skeptical, just look at the Discovery Institute? Would you agree or disagree with that statement and why?

Not that I expect any kind of real answer.

, I was wondering if he did when he was jumping on people for not having the power to arbitrate who is and who is not skeptics. But it is likely that they consider themselves to be skeptics.

Do you consider the Discovery people skeptics? If so/not, why?

ponderingturtle

20th November 2007, 07:02 AM

Define "better"?

You can choose any real metric you want. Some will do better at them than others

"Equal" in what way? "All men are created equal" has different connotations depending on who's using it. Some people, for instance, believe that it means that all men are equal in the eyes of the law.

But that is not a position based on evidence, it is similar to theistic principles because it is also a philosophical principle.

ponderingturtle

20th November 2007, 07:03 AM

Yes, you do:
No I was taking wondering how far his position went.

CFLarsen

20th November 2007, 07:40 AM

No I was taking wondering how far his position went.

Well, then: Why don't you consider the Discovery people skeptics?

Lonewulf

20th November 2007, 09:46 AM

You can choose any real metric you want. Some will do better at them than others.
Yes, but almost everyone contributes in some way, shape, or form. Not everyone needs to be a 1337 programmer. ;)

But that is not a position based on evidence, it is similar to theistic principles because it is also a philosophical principle.

It is a position based on evidence if the law actually does treat them as equal. Then it's easy enough to say, "They are equal in the eyes of the law". There, done.

Of course, the law doesn't tend to actually work that way, but that's the ideal...

Yoink

20th November 2007, 10:08 AM

Good for you.
Devastating counter-argument.

ponderingturtle

20th November 2007, 10:33 AM

Yes, but almost everyone contributes in some way, shape, or form. Not everyone needs to be a 1337 programmer. ;)

I didn't say that they where worthless, just not equal.

It is a position based on evidence if the law actually does treat them as equal. Then it's easy enough to say, "They are equal in the eyes of the law". There, done.

Of course, the law doesn't tend to actually work that way, but that's the ideal...

But why is that better than treating some different than others in a dirrect fashion based on their traits(not the general pointless racial groupings people are fond of)

The Atheist

20th November 2007, 10:58 AM

I see that as personally inconsistent (up to them) and condescending (on the part of atheist sceptics). Sort of like saying, there there, you can believe in your emotional crutch as long as it's rendered externally impotent by not actually having any impact on the real world.

Me? No, I couldn't square it with the way I view the world with what I see as scepticism as my primary method for doing so. It seems hugely inconsistent, irrational, and as I know there's no evidence behind the idea, I simply can't maintain the level of self-deceit necessary to take that on board.

But I can allow it for others, of course. Why wouldn't I? I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to. In fact, as they don't make any testable claims, unlike the woos, they've got their own irrational beliefs pretty much unassailable. That's fine for them - I'm just saying I don't understand it, like the OP, not advocating that theist sceptics should be shunned or drummed out of the "club" or whatever.

I'm just trying to understand people that, notional theism aside, otherwise seem to share my own worldview.

Nominated - brilliantly put.

Myself, I find that I have more in common with liberal christians than skeptics.

No one is a 100% purist when it comes to skepticism. For instance, there are times where I believe that I can trust a friend; even when he's broken my trust, I'm willing to believe that he's honest about how he's not willing to break my trust again. That takes faith as much as it takes evidence.

Sorry mate, but your analogy is bollocks. Any comparison of belief in a metaphysical entity with belief in an actual person just won't make sense.

"Skeptic" is precisely the same as "christian" in classification terms, and if you doubt that, try to make a hat which fits all christians.

It's clearly like "black", one can self-identify as "black", but when that one gits down to da 'hood wid ma bruddas in Manurewa (real place, btw) or turns up at the Mataatua Marae, he'd better be able to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

Rationality shouldn't be available to only an elite few. Let them call themselves skeptics. We know whether they really are or not.

Was dead right. But even "rationality" doesn't fit - I've got a couple of christian buddies who will gladly expose how much more rational they are than me.

Devastating counter-argument.

What counter argument were you looking for? You made a statement about your beliefs and I said you're welcome to them. Just as my five-year old is entitled to a belief in Santa, you're entitled to your beliefs. If you want to argue about them, start a thread.

Yoink

20th November 2007, 11:10 AM

What counter argument were you looking for? You made a statement about your beliefs and I said you're welcome to them. Just as my five-year old is entitled to a belief in Santa, you're entitled to your beliefs. If you want to argue about them, start a thread.

Seriously? You think that a belief in the real existence of the world is of exactly the same type as a belief in Santa? And you see no troubling implications for your argument in admitting that?

Apology

20th November 2007, 11:42 AM

What does that have to do with the availability of rationality? I wasn't aware it is rationed somehow.

They can be as rational as they want - but nobody should claim rationality for instances where they aren't being rational.

The ET Corn Gods case has been discussed on another forum that I frequent, and many of the posters there say they have been driven away from the JREF by anti-theistic sentiment. They might have helped us against Sylvia Browne or Bigfoot, but now they're anti-skeptics because they feel they were insulted for their religious beliefs. Thus far, everyone on the other board who has a beef with the JREF has cited a thread here in religion and philosophy as their reason, in particular the ID thread. I think it's a damn shame, personally.

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 11:52 AM

The ET Corn Gods case has been discussed on another forum that I frequent, and many of the posters there say they have been driven away from the JREF by anti-theistic sentiment. They might have helped us against Sylvia Browne or Bigfoot, but now they're anti-skeptics because they feel they were insulted for their religious beliefs. Thus far, everyone on the other board who has a beef with the JREF has cited a thread here in religion and philosophy as their reason, in particular the ID thread. I think it's a damn shame, personally.

I understand what you are saying, and I certainly don't think theists should be driven away, and things like that. But! We must be able to discuss these things, and to be honest, some don't seem to need much to feel they have been insulted, and driven away. All we did above in this thread for example was to say that we couldn't make it go together in our minds how one can be a theist and a skeptic (the way we define skeptic) and not see it as an inconsistency - and Cleon and fnord reacted with calling us arrogant, and made it sound as if we thought they shouldn't be here, and told us to "deal with it" (ie their existance here). Why would we have to deal with it when there's nothing to deal with? Most of us have no problems with them whatsoever. But we merely pointing out that there is in fact an inconsisteny equalled an insult and an attempt to drive them away - apparently :boggled:

I personally agree with you fully, many of them do good, and I think it is good for the whole of this forum to have such diversity among its members, but really, they have to grow thicker skin than that, and accept that things like this can and will and should be discussed.

GreNME

20th November 2007, 12:00 PM

Dude, I'm not even religious in any way (theist or otherwise) and I don't get the impression that actual discourse can be had in this subforum. It isn't about getting thicker skin, it's about being capable of civil discourse. There isn't anything civil about flatly telling a whole swath of people you think they are mentally, emotionally, or psychologyically lacking.

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 12:04 PM

Dude, I'm not even religious in any way (theist or otherwise)

I know, you have said it several times, and I have no reason not to believe you.

and I don't get the impression that actual discourse can be had in this subforum. It isn't about getting thicker skin, it's about being capable of civil discourse. There isn't anything civil about flatly telling a whole swath of people you think they are mentally, emotionally, or psychologyically lacking.

I don't agree with any of this. I don't think anyone here said any such things, I certainly didn't. And I do think it is about growing thicker skin, if pointing out a percieved inconsistency creates such reactions as Cleon's for example.

Apology

20th November 2007, 12:06 PM

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 12:15 PM

If I were Fnord and Cleon, I would interpret this thread as saying that some posters felt I was too stupid or delusional to be a true skeptic, and that I was unwelcome by those posters on this forum.

And if I were them I wouldn't!

That's pretty much what the posters on the other forum said about the JREF. I'd describe their demographic as "college students". That website also has a rather high atheist population and sometimes non-atheist members feel disenfranchised.

You are surely right, I haven't read that forum, so I can't say. I speak for myself here, and how I percieve this thread.

I understand the dichotomy being discussed: it seems only natural that after one debunks ghosts, psychics, and Bigfoot, one's thoughts would turn to the great Sky-Daddy and begin to doubt. I had sort of the opposite effect in my life: I never believed in the Sky-Daddy, and came to doubt the rest of it later, so I also don't understand how they maintain the dichotomy. However, I'm sure that they do, and I'm sure that their efforts help us.

It's obvious that they do maintain the dichotomy. Why can't we discuss it? If someone wants to discuss something/anything here on JREF we should think about how we discuss it, yes, and there are always room for improvement in the 'how' here on this thread, as well as in all threads. But should we really refrain alltogether from discussing things because it may be seen as controversial by some members, and because we need them so much that it's not worth the risk to maybe anger, or even only annoy them? Personally I don't think so.

It also helps to have sympathetic moles in the churches to help support some of our less radical, non-atheistic ideas, like stem cell research. Fnord has a whole captive audience to keep away from Novus Spiritus and Sylvia Browne. His contribution goes a long way further than mine does.

I have never disputed that they do good. I still want to be able to discuss whatever I want.

GreNME

20th November 2007, 12:18 PM

I don't agree with any of this. I don't think anyone here said any such things, I certainly didn't. And I do think it is about growing thicker skin, if pointing out a percieved inconsistency creates such reactions as Cleon's for example.

You don't get it: it isn't about whether you agree or not. The fact that you and others are giving off that impression is evidenced in that I and others have stated that is the impression we are getting. So, either it's every person who stops and says "hey, you're being awfully arrogant and not open to discourse" who is making the mistake of constantly getting that impression, or it just might possibly be that some of you need to work on your delivery.

You go ahead and think what you want, though. I'm sure it's everyone else. :)

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 12:21 PM

You don't get it: it isn't about whether you agree or not. The fact that you and others are giving off that impression is evidenced in that I and others have stated that is the impression we are getting. So, either it's every person who stops and says "hey, you're being awfully arrogant and not open to discourse" who is making the mistake of constantly getting that impression, or it just might possibly be that some of you need to work on your delivery.

You go ahead and think what you want, though. I'm sure it's everyone else. :)

I see. And your impressions are more true than others, why? Others have also "evidenced" that they do not get that impression.

Apology

20th November 2007, 12:28 PM

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

CFLarsen

20th November 2007, 12:31 PM

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

Evidence?

Yeah.....that's what it comes down to. ;)

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 12:36 PM

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

I understand, and I believe you, and I really don't mean to be confrontational here, but I have to ask this. Could it be that only the fact that some of us question their beliefs is enough for them to not feel welcome? And if so, is it not kind of expected that skeptics on a skeptic forum does question beliefs? I agree some are unnecessarily harsh with it sometimes, but would you agree that in some cases it can't even be done in the nicest of ways before they feel insulted? And can we really not even question the beliefs of those who are here on the forum to question beliefs themselves (other beliefs than their own, that is)?

Yoink

20th November 2007, 12:37 PM

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.
I agree that people don't have to be dicks about it, but there's no way that somebody who by definition holds a belief that is unsupported by evidence will not feel themselves to be challenged on a skepticism site. Suggesting that skeptics are all very well but that they shouldn't challenge beliefs that are unsupported by evidence is rather like saying that Christians would be fine if it wasn't for that silly belief in God. I would hope that an atheist would be met politely on a Religious Belief discussion site, but would also expect that atheist to be challenged--the same applies here.

Apology

20th November 2007, 12:52 PM

Evidence?

Yeah.....that's what it comes down to. ;)

Would it help if I linked you to posts by other anonymous posters on another anonymous message board?

I don't think so.

CFLarsen

20th November 2007, 01:07 PM

Would it help if I linked you to posts by other anonymous posters on another anonymous message board?

I don't think so.

You can try, but....

What would that prove about how non-atheists in general experience their "welcome" here?

And, why would anyone - non-atheists and otherwise - expect all people on this message board being in perfect agreement on everything?

The Atheist

20th November 2007, 01:16 PM

Seriously? You think that a belief in the real existence of the world is of exactly the same type as a belief in Santa? And you see no troubling implications for your argument in admitting that?

You need to go back and read my answer, then ask me a question about it rather than asking about something I didn't say.

The ET Corn Gods case has been discussed on another forum that I frequent, and many of the posters there say they have been driven away from the JREF by anti-theistic sentiment. They might have helped us against Sylvia Browne or Bigfoot, but now they're anti-skeptics because they feel they were insulted for their religious beliefs. Thus far, everyone on the other board who has a beef with the JREF has cited a thread here in religion and philosophy as their reason, in particular the ID thread. I think it's a damn shame, personally.

Regardless of the level of anti-theism here, they will only find problems if they go looking for them.

There are sufficient christian posters here who don't try to argue their beliefs with the right-wingers to nullify your findings. Just as a hardline atheist will ultimately be ignored or banned in a christian forum, a christian here either fits in or ships out. Find out what those ex-members did to attract such attacks that they left is my advice.

Dude, I'm not even religious in any way (theist or otherwise) and I don't get the impression that actual discourse can be had in this subforum. It isn't about getting thicker skin, it's about being capable of civil discourse. There isn't anything civil about flatly telling a whole swath of people you think they are mentally, emotionally, or psychologyically lacking.

I think you're wrong. I belong to a christian forum which shares some members with JREF as well and it doesn't have a bad reputation at all - even despite my presence! That should be sufficient evidence to the contrary. They all know that I think they're deluded and it doesn't bother them a bit. They just laugh and call me Saulus. I think it's more to do with worldliness and brains than thick skin - those who are genuinely comfortable with their faith see my comments as laughable, the ones who aren't go on the defensive.

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

It's not supposed to be easy.

If they were allowed to come and spout their gibberish uninterrupted, we'd be full of pages discussing John 10:13. Some, like KuriousKathy come in and try to tell us all that the bible is true, page by page and she is rightly scorned.

Myriad comes in and explains his faith and is a bloody legend around here.

(c) Darth Rotor: It's all in the presentation. ;)

ImaginalDisc

20th November 2007, 01:16 PM

That's the whole point: there is no reasonable scientific definition for "what I feel."

Inside your head is a brain. Everything you experience is an electrochemical reaction inside your brain, including the emergent thing we call a "mind." Your feelings are pulses of electrical potential and chemicals flitting across synapse gaps. Your mind is merely a property of your entirely physical brain.

While it is possible that your senses are lying to you and that you are merely a brain in a jar, or that Master Gui is a butterfly dreaming he is a man, or there is an invisible magical god who does nothing and cannot be detected, I will not waste my time on such things. I am an empirical skeptic not a philosophical skeptic. If there is no evidence for something I do not accept it as a fact.

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 01:19 PM

And, why would anyone - non-atheists and otherwise - expect all people on this message board being in perfect agreement on everything?

I would agree, that will never happen. Besides, I don't see people flocking to defend astrologers and psychics like this when they come here with their beliefs, and are being questioned. We are to be civil to all, yes, but we can be pretty straighforward, even harsh, and rather tough in our questioning of their beliefs (and yes, their actual beliefs are also frequently questioned, they are not fair game only if they claim to have proof of them). We seldom hear any protests about questioning them, only if we go too far in how we do it. But theists, especially if they help us question the psychics and the astrologists and the dowsers and so on.. they should get a free pass? Why? Atheists don't get a free pass here either, for that matter, they are often questioned about their "beliefs" as many will have it. Annoys me rather much sometimes, I know I have to take it though, if I want to be here.

Is the actual purpose of this forum, by the way, to join atheists and theists in a fight against a common enemy? That's not my impression of the JREF forum. I thought it was a free discussion forum, where we can question anything.

jmercer

20th November 2007, 01:25 PM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

jmercer

20th November 2007, 01:27 PM

Is the actual purpose of this forum, by the way, to join atheists and theists in a fight against a commom enemy? That's not my impression of the JREF forum. I thought it was a free discussion forum, where we can question anything.

Your impression is correct.

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 01:30 PM

Your impression is correct.

Thank you :)

CFLarsen

20th November 2007, 01:30 PM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

"We cannot know if God exists" is not skeptical?

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 01:32 PM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

True! Though I prefer to put god on the back shelf with santa until there's some reeeally good evidence :)

fredcarr

20th November 2007, 01:38 PM

I'm not religious at all, hold no religious beliefs or faith in anything, and this thread on top of most threads on the first page make it pretty clear that the "Religion and Philosophy" subforum should probably be called the "Atheist or You're Wrong (and probably stupid)" subforum.lol @ this.

Also I agree with Ranillon about it being a method.

Fred

ImaginalDisc

20th November 2007, 01:51 PM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

Once someone has reached a conclusion about Santa's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

Somehow, that seems much less convincing when applied to other sorts of nonsense.

GreNME

20th November 2007, 01:51 PM

We seldom hear any protests about questioning them, only if we go too far in how we do it.

I thought it was a free discussion forum, where we can question anything.

I don't see a lot of questioning going on, I see a lot of forgone assumptions along with accusations.

Look, you're perfectly free to disagree. After all, this is a matter of communication, not cold, hard fact. As an example, you may very well have every intention on being of a position to question when you feel appropriate or how you feel appropriate, yet to me you can still be coming off as someone who has already made up their mind and is basically using others as a sounding board to reinforce a conclusion you have no desire to change.

I'm using you and me as slightly unrepresentative examples, if only because I don't think that's exactly the distinct impression you as an individual have given toward me in particular (runonrunon). It is, however, the impression this subforum seems to give off in my reading of the first couple pages of threads to get a feel for the tone. In this thread alone I am not the only one saying it, though I may be saying it more about the subforum than others.

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 02:02 PM

I'm using you and me as slightly unrepresentative examples, if only because I don't think that's exactly the distinct impression you as an individual have given toward me in particular (runonrunon). It is, however, the impression this subforum seems to give off in my reading of the first couple pages of threads to get a feel for the tone. In this thread alone I am not the only one saying it, though I may be saying it more about the subforum than others.

For what it's worth, I really don't mean to be disrespectful to theists, that's not my intention, and I agree that people don't always realize how they come across to others. I just want to speak my mind on all sort of questions, and I dislike the feeling that some issues might be taboo to discuss. I admit that I can become defensive too, if I feel that that's the case (whether it is really a reality, or just in my head). I'm not perfect in any sense of the word

In this case, I see about half of the people in this thread getting the same impressions as you, and half of them getting the same impressions as me (I haven't counted, but something like that). So I admit it is more of an open question really what really is the truth (as in, if most people in this thread really did meant to be insulting and disrespectful toward the theists here on JREF, or not) I realize I can be wrong, but my impression that it is not the case for the thread as a whole, is honest. And even if I can understand Cleon to a certain extent, I still do think that he did over-react.

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 02:09 PM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about Santa's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

Somehow, that seems much less convincing when applied to other sorts of nonsense.

You're right. I would be willing to change my mind even of Santa though, if the evidence were strong enough, so in that sense I do agree with jmercer, however for some things, that happening (evidence being found) seems to me SO unlikely as to me never really needing to bother with it in any practical sense. For me god and santa are both put on the same shelf in the back of the cupboard for that reason.

Darth Rotor

20th November 2007, 02:10 PM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.
jmerc, from this I derive that either only an agnostic is a skeptic, or that only an agnostic is able to act skeptically.

Did I understand you correctly?

(PS: A belated Happy Birthday to you, 10 Nov, and 232 years of your Corps, "former" considered. :) )

For all hands: six of the skeptics whose posts I read with anticipation (not the only ones, but a goodly sampling) are

jmercer
Garrette
RandFan
Capel Dodger
Mercutio
Marquis De Carabas

All of these skeptics demonstrate that one can be a skeptic without being a right prick. What GrenMe and Apology have both pointed out in this thread is that such prickishness can drive away otherwise sympathetic leanings toward a general sense of, or practice of, skepticism.

Demanding adherence to a narrowly defined True Skepticism seems to me a profound error in packaging. Being inclusive, rather than exclusive, is a better approach if you want to broaden the skeptical base. (Digression: the exclusive/inclusive problem is part of why Gnosticism failed and Christianity, as it grew, succeeded.)

Gee, more flies with honey than vinegar, and we see the admonition for a lively and friendly discourse right at the top of the page. (TA, thanks for the nod. Appreciated, mate.)

Full disclosure: I can be a right prick about any number of things, and realize that it can detract from the message.

This takes us back to the OP.

What is the purpose of this attempt to define skeptic in such a manner?

Kilt sales?

It is the Christmas and gift a thon season, so perhaps the aim is commercial. :p

DR

Big Les

20th November 2007, 02:33 PM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

Maybe I'm being thick, but I just don't see the difference between your statement, and the Santa one after it, or even;

"Once someone has reached a conclusion about the Invisible Pink Unicorn's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical."

Why does the concept of god carry any more weight than literally anything else I, you, or anyone else could conceive of that have no evidence? We put aside suggestions that there might be such a unicorn, or out-of-body experiences, ghosts, whatever, on the basis that they have no evidence at all. They might exist, but we assume that they don't for the time being, until some evidence comes to light (if ever).

Is it just that people personalyl like the idea of a god, so they keep it on their own mental back-burner in case some evidence turns up (i.e. they die and find out they were right)? Or is it literally, as Claus implies, a way of dealing with the more difficult to deal with aspects of life, without actually having it interfere in your everyday life by requiring any evidence for it?

In either case, what is it about not overtly making any claims (other than the implicit one that you think a god exists) that makes you any different from any other believer? Just because they may not appreciate that if you make testable claims, you need to back them up, doesn't mean that their personal belief in ghosts, alien visitors, psychic powers etc is any less valid, surely?

Imagine a believer in another immeasurable supernatural concept, instead of arguing the toss here on the forum because they don't grasp what constitutes quality evidence, instead said "well OK, my evidence isn't up to scratch, I accept that. But I'm still going to believe in ghosts regardless". Would you think that entirely reasonable? I think I'm getting closer to why I have trouble understanding the religion/scepticism compatibility issue. Like Fran, I certainly don't mean to demean any religious sceptics here, and I'm a bit nonplussed by Cleon's reaction in particular, which seemed to be along the lines of righteous indignation that his beliefs were being questioned i.e. not terribly justifiable. On the other hand, I realise he's not making any specific claims about it, nor is he co-opting science, trying to foist his beliefs on other people etc etc. That's great. I'm not saying he and others shouldn't hold these unsupported beliefs, I'd just like to try to understand why and how they do, because for me personally it would be a struggle to reconcile what I see as otherwise universally applicable scepticism. Yeah, sure, I often fail to apply it, but I try to recognise this and avoid it, because I like to be consistent. This is why I said religious scepticism was the "elephant in the living room", because it's not like a "universal" sceptic who happens to say, gamble, or be afraid of the dark. Tangible or not, god is an earth-shattering concept, and I would want to address its veracity using the same tool. And for me the inevitable conclusion of using that tool is that god is no more real than said unicorn.

I hope that makes my thoughts clearer rather than more confused :blush:

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 02:53 PM

I hope that makes my thoughts clearer rather than more confused :blush:

They weren't confusing to begin with, I think :)

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 02:55 PM

Gee, more flies with honey than vinegar

True, if your goal is actually to catch flies :) I'm not sure that is the goal of all people posting on JREF?

Darth Rotor

20th November 2007, 02:58 PM

True, if your goal is actually to catch flies :) I'm not sure that is the goal of all people posting on JREF.
While you may be right, Fran, the aim of the JREF itself is to spread and promote critical thinking as a method, or perhaps as a world view, or even merely as a part of a world view.

Efforts contra that are contra the aims of the JREF. Scaring people off by being a prick about skepticism, should one do that, is thus a self defeating actiion for those who endorse critical thinking.

Are you suggesting that we have in our midst subversives? Are false flag skeptical operatives running rampant among us? Is this all a grand illusion? :eye-poppi

Just asking questions. ;)

DR

Big Les

20th November 2007, 03:04 PM

I agree DR, and I try to moderate my bletherings these days to avoid causing needless offence. But on the other side of the coin, taking offense, claiming religious persecution and then buggering off is also a defence mechanism to avoid challenging ones own beliefs. Not that this is happening here, just that no matter what atheists (if not sceptics) say, it's possible for the religious to play this card rather like a lizard shedding its tail. Oh dear. Poker-playing reptiles? I appear to be metaphorically challenged...

Darth Rotor

20th November 2007, 03:07 PM

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 03:09 PM

While you may be right, Fran, the aim of the JREF itself is to spread and promote critical thinking as a method, or perhaps as a world view, or even merely as a part of a world view.

Efforts contra that are contra the aims of the JREF. Scaring people off by being a prick about skepticism, should one do that, is thus a self defeating actiion for those who endorse critical thinking.

Are you suggesting that we have in our midst subversives? Are false flag skeptical operatives running rampant among us? Is this all a grand illusion? :eye-poppi

Just asking questions. ;)

DR

Didn't say if it was right or wrong, just saying, some posting here does not seem to share that goal, no. Doesn't mean they are against the goal, though

I guess there would be some people that could be described as something in between. Some seem not to want to work very hard for the actual aim of JREF, but are not bent on scaring people off either, some seem just to like to talk and hang out with like-minded people, maybe spending the most time in a subforum such as the humor-one, or the film/TV/music-ones, and similar subforums that are not really put here to act first as aids in the JREF aim and cause, but as social venues. I guess it's possible to be around here and not support the aim very actively, without trying to kind of "sabotage" the aim (for want of a better word).

So, I was maybe expressing myself a bit unclearly, but I wasn't really talking about people who made an effort against JREF's aim when I said not all are here to 'catch the flies', I meant the ones who don't care either way, I guess, or they agree with the cause, but are just as happy to "let others do the work", while still being interested in what is said around here.

But I see that it could be interpreted that way, what I said.

ETA:
Personally I think it's quite OK, to agree with the aim in general, be interested in things discussed here, and speak your mind about things - at the same time as not really wanting to be part of a cause or a movement, or actively work for these things (I suppose you can still do some good now and then, just from pure chance though ;)). Surely you can still be a member on those premises? I guess I am one of those people (that I mentioned last here).

Darat

20th November 2007, 03:31 PM

I always think a good test of whether someone is being sceptical about anything is the old stand-by question "what would it take to change your mind?". If the answer is "nothing" than you probably can't say you are "a sceptic" or being sceptical about that particular opinion, view or conclusion.

As an example already used in this thread - in everyday talk I am quite happy to say that I know "for certain" that the (mainstream) Christian god does not exist. However although I am confident in that conclusion I still hold my conclusion is only provisional in other words I could be wrong (and I can think of some ways that I could be persuaded of this). This, I think, is often the key difference between someone who can be described as "a sceptic" and someone who can't be i.e. whether they acknowledge what they "know" is subject to change and their conclusions are only ever provisional.

So for me (as an example) someone who describes themselves as a "Christian" could either be "a sceptic" or not depending on what level of certainty they claim for their conclusion; one who is certain that their God exists is not sceptical, one who claims that they know that their conclusion may not be correct can accurately call themselves a sceptic just as I could.

Now some may argue that anyone who considers themselves a Christian is not being a "good" sceptic (because they've come to an "obviously wrong" conclusion) but generally those are just arguments over what size kilt is the right size kilt.

Darat

20th November 2007, 03:32 PM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

They are - as long as they keep in mind that their conclusion is not "THE TRUTH" and it may change if new evidence or reasoning comes along.

ImaginalDisc

20th November 2007, 03:47 PM

You're right. I would be willing to change my mind even of Santa though, if the evidence were strong enough, so in that sense I do agree with jmercer, however for some things, that happening (evidence being found) seems to me SO unlikely as to me never really needing to bother with it in any practical sense. For me god and santa are both put on the same shelf in the back of the cupboard for that reason.

I have reached the same conclusion about Santa and God, based on the current evidence I cannot reject the null hypothesis - namely, that they are fictitious. That's a conclusion based on current evidence, so maybe in the future there might be evidence to make me reject the null hypothesis.

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 03:55 PM

I have reached the same conclusion about Santa and God, based on the current evidence I cannot reject the null hypothesis - namely, that they are fictitious. That's a conclusion based on current evidence, so maybe in the future there might be evidence to make me reject the null hypothesis.

Yeah, but I admit I feel pretty confident that it would be a bad idea to hold my breath waiting for it :)

It does seem almost as unlikely to me that there ever will be any new evidence in the future, concerning god and santa, either. But I admit that I can't be 100% sure.

-Fran-

20th November 2007, 04:15 PM

They are - as long as they keep in mind that their conclusion is not "THE TRUTH" and it may change if new evidence or reasoning comes along.

I agree!! Though that doesn't mean, just as you said above, that I am not reasonably confident in my provisional conclusions, for example about god and santa.

Sometimes, when discussing things with believers of different kinds, I have noticed that they latch on to the concept of provisional conclusions as you being very unsure about what conclusion you have actually reached, and that is not quite so. That I admit that one can't be 100% sure of what new evidence might be found in the future, does not mean that it wouldn't take some very new, very convincing and very different (from what there is now) evidence.

Not directed at you, just a general observation.

gtc

20th November 2007, 04:40 PM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

"We cannot know if God exists" is not skeptical?

You are correct that 'We cannot know if God exists' is a conclusion, but I think that he was implying a more definitive conclusion such as 'God exists' or 'God does not exist'.

This seems obvious to me from the context and wording of the sentence but might not be to others.

articulett

20th November 2007, 04:49 PM

I think that most skeptics apply a scientific approach to knowingness-- hence most don't accept claims involving the supernatural. Most gods appear to lie in the supernatural realm. So I think it makes sense that the majority of skeptics hold no beliefs about any gods-- that is, they are atheistic. It's not a requirement... and some people certainly apply more skepticism to some areas of their life than others. But unless or until there is convincing evidence that some kind of consciousness can exist outside of a living brain, I think most skeptics conclude that such a prospect is increasingly unlikely-- that makes gods, demons, and souls all products of human imagination.

After all, we have lots of evidence that people invent such things... and we know for certain the vast majority have been illusions (Zeus, Baal, etc.) And despite eons of belief, we haven't a smidgen of measurable evidence. Compare that to DNA (something no almighty anything ever mentioned, but now we know tons about.)

I don't really know how a skeptic believes in a god or what the nature of that god might be other than a comforting notion or maybe a hedging one's bets ala Pascel's wager.

Apology

20th November 2007, 09:25 PM

True, if your goal is actually to catch flies :) I'm not sure that is the goal of all people posting on JREF?

Well we did recently have that referral contest that arthwollipot won. I think the JREF wants new users.

Some of the people coming here to check it out aren't enjoying it and aren't wanting to come back. I presume some of them were fairly rational people and the JREF members who referred them expected them to like the site. I had one or two who didn't like it because of all the bickering.

Everyone that I've linked to a RSLancaster/Sylvia Browne thread because they had an interest in Browne has liked those threads and RS's site though. That's why I think it has more to do with delivery rather than message.

UnrepentantSinner

20th November 2007, 09:30 PM

The Supernatural really can't be tested by the scientific method. Claims about the Supernatural definately can. While I hate the Santa analogy in toto, I'll explain why below, it makes a good one for explaining testability. It's claimed that Santa lives at the North Pole and comes down the chimney to deliver presents. This can be falsified becuase we've been to the North Pole and there's no house, reindeer livery or workshop full of elves, houses that don't have chimneys still wind up with presents and children who do live in houses with chimneys sometimes don't get presents.

Unfortunately testing claims about the Supernatural aren't so cut and dried. Take prayer efficacy studies for example. Where to do we put the error bar for the mind of God? How do we determine if someone did or did not improve because God made it happen or didn't?

I think the correct skeptical position is either weak atheism or agnosticism, and, as Darat pointed out, those positions should be provisional.

------------
Back to Santa. The real problem I have with it is that there once was a real Santa Claus. Our modern concept of him is far removed from the good deeds of St. Nicholas though and it's entirely possible that is the case with all religions today.

CFLarsen

21st November 2007, 01:10 AM

You are correct that 'We cannot know if God exists' is a conclusion, but I think that he was implying a more definitive conclusion such as 'God exists' or 'God does not exist'.

This seems obvious to me from the context and wording of the sentence but might not be to others.

But we can actually say "God does not exist", the same definitive way we can say "The Earth is not flat". We can do that because the scientific evidence shows this. While always provisional, it is as definitive as it can get without becoming dogmatic.

The atheist who says "There is no God, because there is no scientific evidence" is a skeptic. The atheist who says "There is no God, regardless of what comes up" is certainly not a skeptic. Such a person is no different from someone who says "Sylvia is a psychic, regardless of what comes up".

dann

21st November 2007, 01:24 AM

So there is no Sylvia?? :-)

Autolite

21st November 2007, 01:25 AM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

Oh my! I have reached the conclusion that 2+2=4. Does this mean that I am no longer being skeptical?

Acknowledging that god doesn't exist is simply acknowledging reality. It isn't my fault that there are so many folks who are incapable of determining what's real and what isn't ...

Lonewulf

21st November 2007, 03:05 AM

Dancing David

21st November 2007, 04:31 AM

Dancing David

21st November 2007, 04:39 AM

A lot of people I've talked to have the impression that non-atheists aren't welcome here. I try to dispute that where I can, but you guys don't make it easy.

People get toasted here, it doesn't matter if you are an atheist or not.

The problem that i see is that people don't often seperate the thoughts from the people expressing them, and the false intimacy of the internet.

All sorts of ideas are debated and unfortunately slammed around here. Ifind that the greatest problem with the forum is the driveby pithy retort, where a poster will just try to score funny haha points and acts as though that is critical thought, there are frequent examples of this. many people will do a sarcastic driveby and then never respond to the very cogent counters that are offered.

It used to be much worse on this board, there was a herd mentality that what was funniest was often the most true.

Mobyseven

21st November 2007, 05:41 AM

It's not religion-extempting. It's simply acknowledging that skepticism doesn't concern itself with non-testable claims.

Yes it does.

If a claim is untestable, I can conclude that there is no difference between a universe in which the claim is true and a universe in which the claim is false.

In addition to that, I am aware that there are a finite number of claims that can be made about the universe that are true, while there are an infinite number of claims that are false.

It is far more likely, therefore, that any given claim about the universe will be false. On top of that, if I believe in one untestable claim, I have set a precedent by which there is no reason not to believe in all untestable claims - of which there are an infinite amount. And finally, there are untestable claims about the universe which are mutually exclusive with other untestable claims about the universe - and I have no method by which I can rationally decide which one to believe in.

As such, when presented with an untestable claim I should not believe the truth of the claim.

Mobyseven

21st November 2007, 05:50 AM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about God's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

I disagree. One can reach a conclusion about anything. Scientists do it all the time. Skeptics do it all the time.

What matters is whether a person is willing to admit that they may have reached an incorrect conclusion - could further evidence, if presented, change your mind about the conclusion you originally reached?

CFLarsen

21st November 2007, 06:16 AM

Yes it does.

Name one.

If a claim is untestable, I can conclude that there is no difference between a universe in which the claim is true and a universe in which the claim is false.

In addition to that, I am aware that there are a finite number of claims that can be made about the universe that are true, while there are an infinite number of claims that are false.

If there are a finite number of claims that can be made about the universe that are true, it must mean that there are also a finite number of questions that we can ask about the universe that will give true answers.

You are in effect saying that there is a limit to knowledge of the universe.

It is far more likely, therefore, that any given claim about the universe will be false. On top of that, if I believe in one untestable claim, I have set a precedent by which there is no reason not to believe in all untestable claims - of which there are an infinite amount.

That's true: If you believe in astrology, you have already given up reason and critical thinking, so there is no reason not to believe in fairies.

However, once you have abandoned reason, you are probably not going to use reason not to believe in other things. You believe in astrology because you like the idea that astrology is true, but you don't believe in psychic surgery, because you don't like that idea.

And finally, there are untestable claims about the universe which are mutually exclusive with other untestable claims about the universe - and I have no method by which I can rationally decide which one to believe in.

As such, when presented with an untestable claim I should not believe the truth of the claim.

A fool can ask more questions than 10 wise men can answer.

Big Les

21st November 2007, 06:23 AM

Yes it does.

If a claim is untestable, I can conclude that there is no difference between a universe in which the claim is true and a universe in which the claim is false.

In addition to that, I am aware that there are a finite number of claims that can be made about the universe that are true, while there are an infinite number of claims that are false.

It is far more likely, therefore, that any given claim about the universe will be false. On top of that, if I believe in one untestable claim, I have set a precedent by which there is no reason not to believe in all untestable claims - of which there are an infinite amount. And finally, there are untestable claims about the universe which are mutually exclusive with other untestable claims about the universe - and I have no method by which I can rationally decide which one to believe in.

As such, when presented with an untestable claim I should not believe the truth of the claim.

Exactly. And I see belief in a god as a de facto (if untestable) claim. Which is why I can't understand how sceptics can take the one thing on board with no evidence and presumably live their lives according to it, and not all the other claims for which there is no evidence. On what basis do they hold their belief?

What's the qualitative difference between holding an untestable belief and witholding any testable claims about it, and holding an untestable belief, and misguidedly making claims that are testable? Is the only difference between a sceptic and a believer that they know when to keep their mouths shut?

I hope that I haven't offended anyone, but I really don't see why we can't politely discuss this. Why shouldn't religious beliefs, even ones that aren't applied to the physical world as such, be questioned, to the enlightenment of all concerned? I would hope that sceptical religious folk would be able to do this rather than taking offence and clamming up. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone believing in god can't be a sceptic otherwise. I appreciate scepticism applied to anything, even if it isn't applied universally, because "god" knows that's not even possible. It's just that the god thing seems rather a big irrationality to adhere to if one is otherwise very sceptical. Which was my earlier point/question that has so far gone unanswered.

Beth

21st November 2007, 06:29 AM

In addition to that, I am aware that there are a finite number of claims that can be made about the universe that are true, while there are an infinite number of claims that are false.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Is it not possible that there are an infinite number of true claims about the universe?

As such, when presented with an untestable claim I should not believe the truth of the claim. How about the claim that there are a finite, rather than an infinite number of true claims that can be made about our universe? Isn't that an untestable claim?

GreNME

21st November 2007, 06:47 AM

For what it's worth, I really don't mean to be disrespectful to theists, that's not my intention, and I agree that people don't always realize how they come across to others. I just want to speak my mind on all sort of questions, and I dislike the feeling that some issues might be taboo to discuss. I admit that I can become defensive too, if I feel that that's the case (whether it is really a reality, or just in my head). I'm not perfect in any sense of the word

In this case, I see about half of the people in this thread getting the same impressions as you, and half of them getting the same impressions as me (I haven't counted, but something like that). So I admit it is more of an open question really what really is the truth (as in, if most people in this thread really did meant to be insulting and disrespectful toward the theists here on JREF, or not) I realize I can be wrong, but my impression that it is not the case for the thread as a whole, is honest. And even if I can understand Cleon to a certain extent, I still do think that he did over-react.

Well, I'd also like to say that reading that from you has also changed my mind somewhat. :)

Big Les

21st November 2007, 06:58 AM

If you believe in astrology, you have already given up reason and critical thinking, so there is no reason not to believe in fairies.

This doesn't seem to be consistent with the idea that you can maintain an unsupported belief in god, yet still exercise reason and critical thinking otherwise. In other words, and I recognise this, you can believe in god without evidence and still demand evidence for anything claimed to affect the physical world. I see that, and I welcome religious sceptics just as I do atheistic ones. I just don't see how it's a consistent position.

However, once you have abandoned reason, you are probably not going to use reason not to believe in other things. You believe in astrology because you like the idea that astrology is true, but you don't believe in psychic surgery, because you don't like that idea.

Exactly - a non-sceptical approach based upon subjective plausibility. Without evidence, what's the reason for believing in god? Isn't it the same - that you like the idea?

UnrepentantSinner

21st November 2007, 08:23 AM

This doesn't seem to be consistent with the idea that you can maintain an unsupported belief in god, yet still exercise reason and critical thinking otherwise. In other words, and I recognise this, you can believe in god without evidence and still demand evidence for anything claimed to affect the physical world. I see that, and I welcome religious sceptics just as I do atheistic ones. I just don't see how it's a consistent position.

We keep asking this but no one ever seems to answer. Unlike astrology or faries, how exactly does one scientifically test for God? The responses keep going back to Santa or the FSM, but they simply don't answer the question. How exactly do we scientifically test for God?

There's miles of distance between "I'm a skeptic, but I think there might be something to Bigfoot sightings" or "I'm a skeptic, but I still am a religious believer" and "I'm a skeptic but Bigfood exists and/or Jesus fixed my broken arm after the doctors X-rayed it, put it in a cast and had me rest it for a month."

Let me stress this again for the thousandth time - No one who thinks skeptics who are religious should be embraced is suggesting religious claims should be considered a no fly zone. We're merely suggesting that we're a lot more concerned about recruiting people who fight Nigerian spam scams, homeopathy, YECism, PSI, Ufology, conspriacy therories, etc. who happen to be religious believers than in smacking them down for believing in something that is outside of the perview of the scientific method which, at it's heart, is skepticism.

jmercer

21st November 2007, 09:01 AM

"We cannot know if God exists" is not skeptical?

Correct.

CFLarsen

21st November 2007, 09:05 AM

Correct.

Why?

jmercer

21st November 2007, 09:06 AM

Once someone has reached a conclusion about Santa's existence - whatever that conclusion may be - they are no longer being skeptical.

Somehow, that seems much less convincing when applied to other sorts of nonsense.

Not at all, really.

Consider a child that believes in Santa; he or she is not being skeptical. They are accepting a belief based on authority (their parents, or whoever told them that there is a Santa Claus) and evidence (presents that appear on Christmas morning, the guy in the suit in the mall, etc.), and have concluded that Santa Claus exists. They have no idea that they are the victims of a traditional conspiracy.

Now, consider that same child doubting and questioning the existence of Santa; he or she is indeed now being skeptical.

Once the child concludes or discovers that there is indeed no Santa, they are no longer being skeptical. They have reached the conclusion that Santa Claus does not exist.

ImaginalDisc

21st November 2007, 09:07 AM

Why?

There is nothing unskeptical about saying that it is possible for a completely undetectable god to exist. What is unskeptical is believing in that god anyway. It indicates you care nothing for truth but rather love superstition.

jmercer

21st November 2007, 09:11 AM

Why?
Because it's a conclusion, although it's not a conclusion about God - merely about whether or not God's existence can be proven.

In essence:

1) Position that God can be proven: Non-skeptical
2) Doubts or questioning whether God's existence can be proven: Skeptical
3) Position that God cannot be proven: Non-skeptical

Positions 1 and 3 have decided the question, and so are no longer asking it.

-Fran-

21st November 2007, 09:14 AM

Let me stress this again for the thousandth time - No one who thinks skeptics who are religious should be embraced is suggesting religious claims should be considered a no fly zone. We're merely suggesting that we're a lot more concerned about recruiting people who fight Nigerian spam scams, homeopathy, YECism, PSI, Ufology, conspriacy therories, etc. who happen to be religious believers than in smacking them down for believing in something that is outside of the perview of the scientific method which, at it's heart, is skepticism.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I still don't quite understand. When you say "we" here is this the JREF forum, or the JREF organisation on the whole? I am honestly confused about what the actual purpose of the forum really is. It sounds as if all people who are members here should have this concern about the things you mention, foremost in his or her thoughts?

Don't get me wrong, I am also concerned about these things, and yes, I think that what we can do about it here is good. Personally though it isn't my first goal and reason for being here. If I can do good in that direction I am glad, of course, but I also come here, (and that may be my first reason) to read things that are interesting, to exercise my brain a little (such as it is :o) to talk about things of common interest with like-minded people, and to see what non-like minded people think about things.

It does say that the forum is "a place to discuss scepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way". The friendly part can sure always be worked on, but it does not actually say that the forum has a cause, and that you must actively work for that cause if you want to be a member. If some of the members have a cause and wants to work for it, that's good, and personally I both admire and applaud some things that is done around here. But my impression has been that it is foremost a place for free discussion (the actual forum that is, it might be different for the organization on the whole).

I am not saying that the following is what you actually mean, but when I read your post here, I get the feeling, again, that we should, prefferably, rerfrain from discussing certain things, or at least be very careful in how we do it, so that we don't annoy valuable members of this cause (and I agree they are indeed valuable.) I might be mistaken, but if that's the case, I don't quite like the sound of it. Some discussions sure could have been executed better, of course, but I can't see why the chosen topics in themselves must be "good" or "bad" ones, or if they are proper to a cause or not. I really think that even if a discussion here is not very compatible with the things you mention above concerns us the most (and it does concern me too) it can still be discussed, or it is not a free forum. I guess what I am trying to say is that a free forum must put up with stuff being discussed that has the potential to go against the fight against the things that you mention concerns us the most. It's not necessarily the same thing as knowingly working against the organisation.

I am not suggesting that you are saying we can't discuss these things, but you are saying that we shouldn't "smack" people down for their beliefs if they are good at fighting stuff that are of concern to us all. I guess, the whole point is that I can't see that that is what is done. I can't see the "smacking down" when the inconsistency is pointed out. I realize I might be wrong, but I am honest when I say that I can't see it. And so, it still becomes a "no fly zone" to me, I'm afraid. And I can't see it would hurt the fight against the things that do concern most of us here (but that all people are not prepared to fight in the same way).